( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn,), Hubli in R. A. No. 62/94 in confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Munsiff, Hubli in O. S. No. 190/87.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff had filed a suit in O. S. No. 190/87 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the extent of 150 x 50 ft. in CTS No. 103 situated at karwar Road, Hubli arid running a firewood depot. Originally the property was in Sy. Nos. 107/1 and 107/2 belonging to one Desai family and since the plaintiff was obedient to them, they allotted the said property to the plaintiff and he is running firewood depot therein for more than 30-40 years since the time of his father. Alleging that the respondent-defendant is trying to take possession of the suit property unlawfully, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to the defendant, the suit property is vested with the Government by virtue of the Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Ordinance, 1986 and it has authorised the respondent-defendant as an Administrator to Mahadev Textile Mills to take possession of the suit property. After hearing the parties, the trial Court having raised as many as 5 issues, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his lawful possession and is not entitled for possession and enjoyment and accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. As against it, an appeal was preferred before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli in R. A. No. 62/94. The said Court also holding that the plaintiff is a trespasser and is in unlawful possession of the suit property dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) AT the time of admission on 14-9-2000 this Court has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration :"whether the Courts below were right in rejecting the suit of the plaintiff for injunction only on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved his title to the properly without taking into consideration whether the possession of the plaintiff was settled possession in law?"

( 4 ) HEARD the counsel for the respective parties.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that he is in settled possession of the suit property since more than 30-40 years and the original owner had authorised him to use the property. In futherance to his submission he relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 1995 Kar 183 : (1995 AIHC 3228) in the case of C. Bhaskar v. State of Karnataka to contend that, a person in settled possession though unlawful, dispossession even by true owner is to be by resorting to due process of law. He also relied upon one more ruling of this Court reported in ILR 1999 Kar 1451 : (1999 AIHC 680) in the case of Sathyam alias Ramaiah v. Karnataka Milk Federation Co-operative ltd. , to contend that, where a trespasser is in settled possession of the land, he is entitled to resist or defend his possession even as against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him.

( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that by virtue of the ordinance passed by the Government as per Ss. 4 and 5 of the karnataka Ordinance No. 11/86 all the properties belonging to K. C. T. Mills vested with the Government and the Government has authorised the respondent/defendant to take possession of the suit property, as such, the question of plaintiff claiming that he is in lawful possession does not arise, much less, when a notice also has been issued to him asking him to hand over the possession by the respondent-Administrator.

( 7 ) NOW, let me consider the substantial question of law raised.

( 8 ) AS per S. 41 (j) of the Specific Relief act, injunction cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document