( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous first appeal arises out of a decree passed by the additional principal judge, family court, Bangalore, in o. s. No. 98 of 1987 restraining the defendants-appellants herein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit schedule property.

( 2 ) THE respondent claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of one Shri muniswamappa, father of appellant 1 and the father-in-law of appellant 2. O. s. No. 3272 of 1983 was filed by her initially before the 12th additional city civil judge, Bangalore for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the said Shri muniswamappa and the appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit schedule property. With the coming into force of the Family Courts Act, the said suit was transferred to the family court for trial and disposal, where it was renumbered o. s. No. 98 of 1987 and eventually decreed by the impugned judgment.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint is that her husband, deceased muniswamappa was married thrice, the respondent being second out of the three wives. Her further case is that since relations between the respondent and the third wife of muniswamappa did not remain cordial, muniswamappa, put the plaintiff/respondent in possession of the suit schedule property comprising a house with an open site in which the respondent has been living ever since the year 1965-66. According to her she has been carrying on business in the open space attached to the house by using the same as a fuel depot. A licence was also issued in her favour for that purpose by the corporation. She was also tethering cattle on a part of the suit property and eking out a living by vending milk. The plaint went on to state that muniswamappa had at the instigation of his son and son-in-law, appellants herein started interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They were, she alleged fabricating documents in an attempt to throw her out of the suit property forcing the plaintiff to seek the protection of the court in the suit instituted by her.

( 4 ) THE written statement filed by the defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint and inter alia alleged that the plaintiff-respondent was not the legally wedded wife of muniswamappa hut is kept mistress. The allegation that the plaintiff was running a fuel depot in the suit property was also denied and it was alleged that muniswamappa was himself in possession of the said property. It was alleged that although she was allowed to occupy the property and carry on business as a concubine of muniswamappa she was not entitled to any protection against interference with her possession especially when muniswamappa was ready and willing to maintain her.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following five issues. "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property was given to her by first defendant to live separately and to carry on her business and as such she is in lawful possession of the same on the date of suit? 2. Does she further prove that the defendants obstructed her possession? 3. Is plaintiff entitled to the injunction sought for? 4. What order? What decree? 5. Additional issue. Does defendant 2, prove that this court has ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter involved in this case and the suit is therefore liable to be dismissed"?

( 6 ) IN support of her case, the plaintiff stepped into the witness-box besides examining P. W. 2-shri appi reddy. The defendants did not examine any witness apart from getting their own statements recorded. Appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, assembled by the parties led the trial court to hold that the plaintiff/respondent and late Shri muniswamappa, had cohabited for a long time and that persons known to them had treated them as husband and wife. The plaintiff was held to be in peaceful posses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document