IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff must establish personal interest in the property to seek an injunction; mere possession without title is inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

Bandaru Syamsunder, J.

The plaintiff in OS.No.65 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Uravakonda of Ananthapuramu District is the appellant. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

2. The appellant and the respondents hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking injunction simpliciter in respect of site shown as ‘EFGH’ in Ex.A3/plaint plan. The plaint schedule property is shown in the plaint, which reads as under:

SCHEDULE

EFGH property shown in the plaint plan situated in Palthur village, SRD of Uravakonda, RD of Anantapur within the following particulars:

4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is resident of Palthur village, a house site patta was granted by the Revenue authorities on 25.08.1970 in favour of one P.Channa Basavana Gowd, who is his Senior Paternal Uncle, and ever since granting of Ex.A1/patta in favour of his Senior Paternal Uncle, his uncle and after him, himself is in possession and enjoyment of patta land, wherein he constructed a house about 15 years back, which is shown as ‘ABCD’ in Ex.A3/plaint plan. There is open space to the south of ‘ABCD’ house of the plaintiff, which is shown as ‘EFGH’, wherein the plaintiff has constructed bathroom and lavatory with measurements of 6 feet x 8 inches shown in Ex.A3/plaint plan as ‘IJGF’ and remaining portion is shown as ‘JIEH’, which is being used by the plaintiff for washing the clothes. The plaintiff submits that the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are natural brothers, and the defendant No.3 is the wife of the defendant No.2, they got house towards south of plaint schedule property, shown as ‘KLMN’ in the plaint plan, and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 divided their house into two portions, wherein eastern portion shown as ‘KLMN’ fell to the share of the defendant No.1 and western side portion shown as ‘KLMN’ fell to the share of the defendant No.2. The defendant No.3 got divided from the defendant No.2, she got half share in the house of the defendant No.2. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants are not having windows and door ways towards northern site, i.e., into plaint schedule property and when they intended to construct a new house and tried to open a door towards northern side with an intention to knock away the plaint schedule property and tried to use for their own purpose, which was prevented by him, and then filed suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with his possession of the portion shown as ‘EFGH’ in Ex.A3/plaint plan.

5. The defendants filed written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that house constructed by Mr.P.Channa Basavana Gowd is not within the boundaries specified in the house site patta granted to him. They submit that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file suit regarding patta land, and the plaint schedule property is not within the boundaries of house site patta granted by the Government, as there is open site in between the defendants’ site and site granted to Mr.P.Channa Basavana Gowd, and the said site belongs to the Government, if at all there is any objection, the Government alone has got right to proceed against them. It is also the contention of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable, which is filed by the plaintiff only to harass them, as they never trespassed into the plaintiff’s land, and the plaintiff has no right to construct bathroom and lavatory in the disputed site under the guise of patta granted to Mr.P.Channa Basavana Gowd, who is also having children, due to that there is no cause of action to file a suit. They pray to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial C