The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's failure to prove lawful possession over the property led to the dismissal of the suit, and the appellate court upheld this decision.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

The plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 23.09.2014 passed in R.A.No.27 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2014 passed in O.S. No.63 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Banhatti has filed this regular second appeal.

2. The parties are referred with their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiff-Sahakari Sangh filed the suit bearing O.S.No.63 of 2007 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-State and City Municipal Council, Banhatti in respect of suit property situated in Banhatti D-Forest Sy.No.7 Ward No.1A, municipality property No.2495 measuring East-West 185 feet and North-South 160 feet.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff-Sangha is doing its activity in the suit property for more than 30 years and it is running Weavers Training Centre by constructing permanent structure by getting grant from the Khadi Commission and for the last one year they were running Basaveshwar High School of Walmiki Association and have stored playing materials in the suit property. The suit property is measuring East-West 36 feet and South-North 74 feet along with constructed structure and remaining is open space. On 10.04.2007, agents of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 came to the open space and started cleaning the same and when the Secretary of the plaintiff-Sangha questioned them, they told that they are going to construct the Hostel in the said property. The plaintiff shown the documents of their property, they did not heed for the same. If the defendants construct hostel in the said property, plaintiff will be put to great and irreparable loss and defendants were trying to encroach the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff filed said suit against the defendants.

5. In response to the summons, the defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statements. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have denied the averments made in the plaint. They have denied that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff is for the relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration same is not maintainable and the plaintiff being Co-operative Society the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant No.3 had handed over the suit property to defendant No.2 for construction of B.C.M. Hostel in an area measuring 75 feet X 45 feet with a sketch in Sy.No.7. The defendants have not entered in D-Forest Sy.No.11 at any point of time. As per the Government Order dated 19.03.2005 a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- has been granted for construction of B.C.M. Hostel. The plaintiff with an intention to grab the said property has filed suit, there is no cause of action for the suit and they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement on the same line as that of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 has stated that the plaintiff-Sangha has no right at all over the suit property nor the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are constructing the B.C.M. Hostel for the poor children of backward classes. The plaintiff has not issued prior notice and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is in no way concerned to the suit property.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties trial Court framed the issues. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff-Sangha got examined its representative as PW-1 and got marked 17 documents. Defendant No.2 got examined its Assistant Executive Engineer as DW-1 and got marked 19 documents. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs.

7. Therefore, the plaintiff-Sangha being aggrieved by the said Judgment filed appeal in R.A. No.27 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. The appellate Court secured the lower court records and heard the learned counsels for the parties and passed the impugned Ju