The importance of proper pleading and proof in establishing factual aspects of a case, and the limited applicability of Section 90 of the Evidence Act in drawing inferences about document contents.

1. This appeal is by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.329/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Devanahalli. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent Chikkamuniyamma and 2nd respondent Muniyappa. Since the 1st respondent Chikkamuniyamma is dead her legal representatives have been impleaded. By referring to the parties with respect to their position in the Trial Court, the pleadings in a nutshell are as below:

In respect of 1 acre 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.119 of Mahadevakodigehalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, referred to as suit property, the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said property earlier belonged to one of them i.e., the 1st plaintiff and she sold the same in favour of one Vanitha Rao by executing sale deed on 2.12.1967 and they repurchased the very same property through the sale deed 10.11.1993. Since the date of repurchase they were in possession of the suit property carrying on agricultural operations. The 1st defendant is in occupation of 1 acre of land to the East of the suit property. On 30.05.1994 when the 2nd plaintiff was ploughing the suit property the defendants obstructed and threatened to dispossess them and thereafter they filed the suit for permanent injunction.

2. The 1st defendant in his written statement contended that the suit property was the Government land and in the records it was classified as Gomala. The suit land had not been granted to the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title and therefore the 1st plaintiff had no right to sell any part of land in Sy.No.119 in favour of Vanitha Rao. He also contended that he was in continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.119 for more than 30 years. He pleaded further that the boundaries of the suit property shown in the plaint were not correct and that the plaintiffs were not at all in possession of the suit property. The 1st defendant filed additional written statement contending that his land was not situated on the Eastern side of the suit land, but it was situated within the boundaries given in the plaint schedule.

3. The Trial Court after examining the witnesses and appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not able to prove the identity of the suit property and also their possession on the date of suit and therefore dismissed the suit.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court the plaintiffs preferred the appeal, R.A.No.175/2004. The learned Fast Track Court Judge who decided the appeal, by its judgment dated 01.12.2009 reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence this second appeal.

5. On 26.11.2010 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Was the Appellate Court right in decreeing the suit for injunction against the appellant when a serious dispute was raised regarding identity of the property?"

6. For dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiffs would rely upon three sale deeds Ex.P.1 to 3. In Ex.P.1, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.01.1961 the boundaries of the property are shown as towards East - land of Shanubogara Gundappana, towards West - Dongara, North - land of Venkatamma and towards South - land of Thoti Thimma and others. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 pertain to the very same property where the same boundaries are mentioned. Ex.P.4 is the sale deed dated 10.11.1993 under which the plaintiffs repurchased the suit property from Vanitha Rao. In this sale deed the boundaries are mentioned as towards East - land of Munishamappa, Dasappa and Papanna, towards West - Dongara, towards North - Bagalur - Budigere Road and towards South - land of Kodige Muniyappa. In this sale deed, the total extent of the land is shown as 2 acres. Then the Trial Court referred to