Possession on the date of filing a suit is essential for granting a permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court findings on possession were upheld as correct.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. 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 29.02.2016 in A.S.No.9 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 08.07.2013 in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein are defendant Nos.1, 2 & 5; 1^st respondent herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.During the pendency of this appeal, 1^st appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.4 to 6.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the 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.9 of 2013, 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 defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 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.246 of 2007, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff.

Originally, the suit survey number is for an extent of Ac.16-01 cents under old paimash numbers 72 to 80, under joint possession and enjoyment of three members i.e., Jagannadha Reddy, Paidepalle Parvathamma and Ramaiah @ Ramakrishnaiah i.e., father of plaintiff and that out of the said total extent, the father of plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6-55 cents of land and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. The defendants are now under imprison that the suit land is a poramboke land, and as such, on 18.10.2007, they came to the suit land and tried to occupy the same and also applied for patta and when protested, the defendants proclaimed that they would occupy the plaint schedule property and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The 2^nd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

Originally, the property in Sy.No.54/1 is an extent of Ac.16-01 cents and it is in joint possession and enjoyment of one Jagannadha Reddy, Parvathamma and Krishnaiah and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the plaintiff is no way concerned with the said three joint pattadars and Krishnaiah, who is the joint pattadar, is different from Radhakrishnaiah, the father of plaintiff and as per the revenue records, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-50 cents only, but not Ac.6-55 cents and one Chandramouli Reddy and defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and half of the extent in Sy.No.54/1 was acquired by government in the year 1983 and house site pattas were given to BC people on the said land and the beneficiaries constructed the houses long ago.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil J