( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sedam, in r. A. No. 140/2002, dated 25-2-2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chincholi, in O. S. No. 29 of 1978, dated 30-9-1999 and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for injunction holding that the suit for bare injunction without seeking for declaration of title is not maintainable.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.- the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 29 of 1978 seeking for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The suit schedule property comprises of three items of landed properties and a house as described in para 2 of the plaint.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that Ningappa was the owner in possession of the house and the landed properties and the plaintiff was living with Ningappa. Ningappa had executed a registered Will in favour of the plaintiff on 15-9-1961 and Ningappa died in 1976 and thereafter plaintiff has continued to be in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants having no right, title or interest are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and wherefore the suit for bare injunction.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 4 denying the material averments made in the plaint that plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. It is further averred that the averment made in the plaint that Ningappa has executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff is false and second defendant was adopted son of Ningappa on 22-11-1960 and suit schedule properties are in possession of defendant 2 in his own right as the adopted son of Ningappa and since the plaintiff claims title to the property on the basis of the Will executed by Ningappa subsequent to adoption of defendant 2, the suit for bare injunction without seeking for declaration of title is not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE Trial Court framed appropriate issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as P. W. 1 and she also examined P. Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 7. On behalf of the defendants, defendant 2 examined himself as D. W. 1 and he also examined D. W. 2 and got marked the documents Exs. D. 1 to D. 14. The trial Court after considering the contentions of the Counsels appearing for the parties and the material on record, answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff has proved that she is in possession of the suit properties as the legal heir of Ningappa and since the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff, granted decree for injunction as sought for in the suit by its judgment dated 30-9-1999. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred regular appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), gulbarga, and after the establishment of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sedam, the same was transferred to the said Court and numbered as R. A. No. 140 of 2002 and the first Appellate Court by its judgment dated 25-2-2003, held that in view of the fact that the plaintiff is claiming relief on the basis of the Will contending that she has succeeded tc the properties of Ningappa as a heir and in view of the fact that defendant 2 claiming to be the adopted son of Ningappa has disputed the title of the plaintiff, the suit for bare injunction without claiming the relief for declaration of title, is not maintainable and accordingly, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as not maintainable and being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plainti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document