(This R.F.A is filed under section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2008 passed in O.S.No.10771/1987 on the file of the XIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction & decreeing the counter claim of defendant no.1 therein.)

This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26th May 2008 in O.S No.10771/1987 on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.

3. The suit was one for injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or their representatives from causing any sort of interference to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule premises by the plaintiff (by himself and on behalf of his co- owners) and for grant of mandatory injunction for removal of the twin huts put up by the defendants in the plaint schedule land and on refusal of the defendants to remove them, the Hon`ble Court to effect removal of the said two sheds by such means as the Hon`ble Court deemed fit in the interest of justice.

4. The case of the plaintiff was that, the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No.56/3 measuring 26 guntas inclusive of 02 Guntas of phot kharab was previously an agricultural land belonging to Sri A. Narayana Reddy. The said Narayaana Reddy sold the same in favour of Chikkathayappa under the registered sale deed dated 13.05.1966. Chikkathayappa and his two sons executed sale deed on 16.12.1980 in favour of Gopichand, Ravindranath and Y. Nageshwara Rao in respect of land bearing Sy. No.56/7 measuring 28 guntas. Rectification deed was executed on 16.06.1981 correcting Sy. No. as 56/2 measuring 10 guntas. Another registered sale deed was executed on 16.12.1980 in favour of Y. Anuradha, Y. Nageswara Rao and the plaintiff in respect of the land in Sy. No.56/7 measuring 32 guntas and another rectification deed in was executed on 16.06.1981 correcting Sy. No. as 56/3 measuring 26 guntas.

5. The plaintiff and his co-owners were put in possession of the suit schedule lands as per the sale deeds and rectification deeds. The plaintiff and other co-owners applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and sought permission for conversion of the land for non-agricultural use. The said permission was granted by order dated 24.12.1981. Accordingly, conversion charges were paid and a residential layout was formed. Village Panchayat sanctioned the plan to the plaintiff to put up residential houses in one of the sites with plinth area of 1430 Sq. feet. The plaintiff and other co-owners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. One Sharadamma, wife of Narayana Reddy had filed suit in O.S. No.4080/1997 against the defendant in respect of Sy. No.6 of Roopena Agrahara. The defendants, by taking advantage of the error in mentioning the survey number in the sale deeds, put up a hut in the suit schedule property with the support of local people.

6. Initially, the Court had granted temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by the plaintiff. Despite having knowledge of the order of temporary injunction, the defendants have deliberately and hastily put up two huts in breach of the temporary injunction. These constructions have been made during the pendency of the suit and also after the service of the order of temporary injunction and hence, the said construction is illegal.

7. The case of the plaintiff was that, after filing the suit, he had obtained temporary injunction and in violation of the order of temporary injunction, the defendants had put up structures. As such, he got the plaint amended by adding paras 6(A) to 6(E) and prayed for the reliefs stated above.

8. The suit schedule property is described by the plaintiff as under:

"SCHEDULE

Lan