1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.205/2005 has preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.71/2007 dated 25/2/2010 by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Hospet, allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20/7/2007 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hospet, in O.S.No.205/2005.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial court.

4. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the appellant herein in respect of suit property, which is land bearing Sy.No.46, measuring 1.84 acres, situated at No.10, Muddapura Village. According to the plaintiff, his grandfather by name Ismail Sab, was cultivating the said land as a tenant and thereafter the plaintiff. After the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1974, plaintiff has continued cultivating the land and has been in possession of the said land. Plaintiff has filed Form No.7A before the Assistant Commissioner at Bellary, seeking declaration of grant of land in his favour. At the same time, the defendant without having any right, title or interest over the suit property has also filed Form No.7A in respect of the said land, whereas, the defendant had no right to file the said application since he is the Dharmakartha of Koolikatti Anjaneya Swamy Temple Kampli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the temple’ for the sake of convenience) to which the suit land belongs.

5. That by order dated 7/4/2001, occupancy rights in respect of one acre of land out of 1.84 acres of land in the suit property was recognised and the land was granted in favour of the plaintiff, against which order dated 7/4/2001, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. Defendant also preferred an appeal against the said order dated 7/4/2001. The appellate tribunal, by order dated 14/6/2002, set aside order dated 7/4/2001 and directed the Assistant Commissioner, Hospet, to enquire into the matter afresh in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, plaintiff got mutated the record of rights pertaining to one acre of land in the said survey number in his name as per the order dated 7/4/2001. Later, after the passing of order dated 14/6/2002, the defendant has also applied before the Tahsildar, Hospet, for mutation in respect of one acre of land in his name and the Tahsildar without considering the objections filed by the plaintiff, passed an order in favour of the defendant. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the said order of the Tahsildar, which is pending enquiry. In the said appeal, the Assistant Commissioner, Hospet, has stayed the order of the Tahsildar, which is in operation.

6. When the matter stood thus, on 10/9/2005 and 25/9/2005, the defendant, with an intention to harvest the banana crop grown by the plaintiff in the suit property, tried to enter into the said property. The plaintiff prevented the high handed acts of the defendant by lodging a police complaint. But no action was taken on that complaint. Since the tenancy issue between the plaintiff and defendant is pending and having no other alternative and efficacious remedy to protect his possession over the suit land, the plaintiff approached the trial court by way of a suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

7. On receipt of suit summons and court notice, defendant appeared through the counsel and filed written statement. Defendant admitted that he has filed Form No.7A in his name and that one acre out of 1.84 acres of land in the suit property was earlier granted in the name of the plaintiff by the Land Tribunal. It is also stated in the written statement that the suit property is reg