The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving possession and title in land disputes, and the requirement to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and recovery of possession when the title is disputed or under a cloud.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant–plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) in R.A.No.48/2010 (old No.12/2010) by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent defendant and setting aside the decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) in O.S.No.92/2002, dated 26.11.2009.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

3. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction claiming that he had purchased the suit schedule property bearing survey No.281/3 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Thyvanagi village, BasavapatnaII Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davangere District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) in public auction held by the Revenue Department for recovery of the Land Revenue arrears in the year 1962-1963. In furtherance of the auction sale, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property and he is in continuous undisturbed position as absolute owner and mutation also transferred in his name and contended that the suit property was included in Sarkari Pada (as Government Land) for arrears of land revenue and the plaintiff paid the entire revenue with penalty and restored the schedule property on 29.12.1999. Mutation also effected in his favour. The defendant’s father Hiriyappa filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘KLR Act’) for granting occupancy right and the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal. The same was not challenged. Subsequently, the defendant also filed Form No.7(a) under KLR Act for the same schedule property which was also rejected. The defendant challenged the order of rejection before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘KAT’). The appeal also dismissed. The same has attained finality. In the meantime, the defendant obtained an order from Tahsildar to protect the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff challenged the order of Tahsildar by filing Writ Petition No.24472/2000. The same was dismissed. However, the plaintiff filed Writ Appeal No.5151/2001, which came to be allowed and the order of Tahsildar was set aside. The defendant along with his supporters attempted to destroy the crops in the schedule property on 21.04.2002. Hence, filed a suit for restraining the defendant from interfering the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

5. In pursuant to the notice, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint as false and contended that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he has taken over the possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the father of the defendant was in possession and cultivation of the land even earlier to the alleged auction purchase by the plaintiff. The application of his father has been dismissed on the ground that the property belongs to the Government. However, the names of the father and mother of the defendant found place in the cultivators’ column in the RTC. Thereafter, the name of the defendant continued in the RTC. Initially, the ancestors of the defendant and also the defendant himself were in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled for permanent injunction. There is no cause of action to file a suit and hence, prayed for dismissing the suit.

6. On the above rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues.

“1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in the possession and enjoyment of