JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The appellant/defendant has filed the present appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016 passed in R.A. No. 100/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Holalkere confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013 passed in O.S. No. 16/2008 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Holalkere.

2. The facts leading to this case are that, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S. No. 16/2008. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she is the owner in exclusive possession of suit house and the said property was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 04.12.1978.The plaintiff further averred in the plaint that she has put up construction after securing permission from the Panchayat. The plaintiff further contended in the plaint that at the time of construction of the house she has left open space on the eastern side of suit property and at that stage the present appellant/defendant who is residing towards the eastern side of the suit property has picked up quarrel and is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, suit for bare injunction came to be filed.

3. On receipt of suit summons appellant/defendant entered his appearance and filed written statement. The present appellant/defendant stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The appellant took a specific contention in the written statement that there is a road situated between the house property of respondent/plaintiff and his property.

The appellant/defendant specifically averred in the written statement that the respondent/plaintiff has approached the Court by suppressing the very existence of the road. The appellant/defendant further averred in the written statement that they are making use and enjoyment of the road for the last several years and on this set of defence appellant/defendant prayed to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Based on the rival contentions the trial Court framed the following issues:

Others Language

5. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded a categorical finding that though the appellant/defendant has taken a contention that there is a public road situated towards west of his property, the same is not at all proved by leading rebuttal evidence to that effect. The trial Court on re-appreciation has culled out the relevant cross-examination of D.W.1 wherein the present appellant has admitted that there are no documents to indicate the existence of a public road between the parties to the suit. The trial Court on meticulously examining the material on record has come to the conclusion that the open space which is situated towards the eastern side of plaintiffs property is exclusively owned by the present respondent/plaintiff and there is no such public road as contended by the appellant/defendant. The trial Court having examined the original sale deed, house deed extracts and other documents has recorded a categorical finding that respondent/plaintiff has left 5 feet open space towards eastern side of her property and has constructed a house as well as compound wall. The trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the document relied on by the appellant/defendant would in fact come to the aid of respondent/plaintiff. The trial Court while interpreting Ex.D1 has recorded a categorical finding that it is not a public document and the same cannot be relied on to determine the controversy between the parties. The clinching evidence adduced by the respondent/plaintiff indicates that respondent/plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of filing of suit. The trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit by holding that the case of plaintiff is quite probable and acceptable. The Trial Court while dealing with issue No. 2 has recorded a categorical finding that in vie