This is an appeal by the defendant in O.S. No. 7026 of 1992 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-8-2000.

2. The suit for injunction having been decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the judgment and decree, the present appeal by the defendant.

3. The appellant had contended that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his possession with regard to the suit schedule property either on the date of the sale deed dated 23-1-1985 based on which the plaintiff claimed right, title and possession to the property or on the date of filing of the suit; that the Court below could the date of filing of the suit; that the Court below could not have decreed the suit for injunction in the absence of any credible material placed by the plaintiff to establish possession in respect of the suit property; that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim that he was in possession on the date of filing of the suit even assuming that he was in possession of the property in the year 1985 that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit etc.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the suit and the present appeal are as under:

Plaintiff who had filed the suit initially for a declaratory relief to prove that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed Ex. P. 3, dated 23-1-1985 and also a declaration that the subsequent sale deed dated 27-12-1989. Ex. D. 7 to be null and void and praying for the relief of permanent injunction etc., against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and the defendant being one claiming under the subsequent sale deed dated 27-12-1989 and the Society from whom both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant claim title to the property be added as the 2nd defendant.

5. The 2nd respondent had subsequently given up the relief of declaration and had confined the suit to one as suit for injunction alone in terms of a memo filed during the pendency of the suit for deletion of the declaratory relief. The plaint averments were that the 2nd defendant-Society had executed the sale deed dated 23-1-1985 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of site bearing No. 160 a site formed by the 2nd defendant in Sy. Nos. 333/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 334/1 and 2 and part of Sy. No. 335 of Kempapura Agrahara, Bangalore North Taluk, and that on the very day possession of sites had been handed over. Notwithstanding, the 1st defendant having claimed right and title to the very sites in terms of a sale deed dated 17-12-1999 executed by the 2nd defendant through one P. Rangaswamappa, as the President of the 2nd defendant-Society and that being a collusive document between the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant and the plaintiff having made enquiry's about the factum of no person by the name Rangaswamappa, being the President of the 2nd defendant-Society and that the cause of action for the suit arose as on 1-11-1990, when the 1st defendant based on his sale deed dated 27-12-1989 attempted to dispossess the plaintiff and as that the threat continued, within the jurisdiction of the Court, it became necessary for the plaintiff to file the suit praying for an order of injunction/restraint order.

6. While the cause of action is pleaded to be one arising on 1-11-1990, it is significant to notice the suit itself was filed on 2-11-1992.

7. It is also pleaded that the authority of the said P. Rangaswamappa who had purported to act as the President of the 2nd defendant-Society had executed the sale deed dated 27-12-1989 in favour of the 1st defendant came to be challenged and in the proceedings which originated before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and culminated in W.P. No. 15614 of 1992 and in the suit O.S. No. 5235 of 1995 litigation fought as against the office-bearers as to who was in management and control of the Society, it had been authoritative