A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.

JUDGMENT :

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2014 in A.S.No.10 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2012 in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. It is to be here that the appellants 1 and 2 herein died during the pendency of this appeal and their legal representatives are brought on record as appellants 3 to 6 and 7 to 9 respectively.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.233 of 2006, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and for costs.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.10 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.233 of 2006, is as follows:

The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule house site, which is situated in Venkatakrishnapalem Gramakantam. The plaintiff occupied the same about 25 years ago and constructed a thatched hut i.e., Sapara mud and he is residing therein with his family members. He further contended that in recognition of his continuous possession and enjoyment, at his request the revenue authorities issued house site patta vide No.6021/1407, dated 20.06.1998. After that, the plaintiff remodel the hut by effecting repairs in the year 1998 and he is also obtained electricity service connection bearing No.3963. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without anybody’s interruption. He further contended that the defendants are strangers as the plaintiff left vacant place for cattle and other purpose, on 29.10.2006 the defendants along with their supporters started removing water tub and debris and hay thereby the plaintiff has no other option except filing the suit. Hence, the suit.

7. The 1st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint and the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

Originally, the plaint schedule property and some other properties are belonged to Boorga Munirathnam Dasu and Booraga Chadandra Sekhar Dasu and they sold the plaint schedule property to Guruswamy Dasu S/o Kailasam Dasu (1st defendant) under a registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1975. Later, the 1st defendant again purchased some of the property from Kanakamma under a registered sale deed, dated 04.10.1976 from his lawful owner. Since then the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff has no right and title and possession over the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant further contended that he sold the plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant on 16.10.2006 under a registered sale deed and delivered possession of the said property for an extent of East-West: 6 ¼ yards and North-South: 19 yards. Since then the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Wh