The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to prove ownership and possession of the disputed property, and the absence of such evidence may result in the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. - This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2015 in RA No.130/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge And JMFC, Chintamani, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2012 passed in OS No.411/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge And JMFC, Chintamani.

2. The parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy. No. 3, measuring 0.30 guntas situated at Kurutihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluk.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the suit schedule property belonged to Government and as the plaintiff s father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, his father applied for grant of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, suit schedule property was granted in favour of the father of plaintiff and consequently, Government issued grant certificate on 16.12.1981. Thereafter, the khata and other documents were mutated to the name of plaintiff s father Thavakal Beig and till today they are standing in his name. The land was granted under grant order No.LND CR 182/1981- 82. According to the plaintiff after the death of his father he inherited the suit schedule property and thereafter he has invested huge sum over the suit schedule property and through his hard work he made the land fertile. He is raising crops in the suit schedule property. He is also paying taxes to the Government and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(c) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, who has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property was trying to interfere with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and claiming title, due to which the plaintiff filed original suit seeking for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction.

4. The defendant represented through his counsel filed his written statement and denied entire averments made by the plaintiff. The defendant has categorically denied the existence of the suit schedule property and so also, the boundaries stated in the plaint and that existing boundaries do not tally each other and they are different. The documents produced by the plaintiff are concocted and created documents. The defendant has pleaded that father of the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. According to the defendant, when there is no existence of the suit schedule property then the question of any obstruction created by the defendant does not arise at any stretch of imagination. According to the defendant one person by name Irshad s/o Musar Fayaz had acquired the land bearing Sy. No. 161 situated at Kuruthahalli Village of Chinthamani Taluk, which was acquired through Darkasth proceedings vide order No.LND RUO Cr 12/1998-99 dated 20.06.1998. Said Mohammed Irshad was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further stated that plaintiff is claiming an illegal right over the suit schedule property. Even the defendant had also filed a suit against the plaintiff, which came to be decreed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the present suit only with a malafide intention to make wrongful gain and illegal benefits. Hence, he requests to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule prope