Point of Law: Suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable and the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, when the defendants apart from denying the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property had setup the title in themselves.

JUDGMENT :

This Regular Second Appeal No.3119/2007 is filed by the appellants defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2007 passed in R.A.No.125/2007 by the learned Principal Civil Judge Senior Division at Kalaburagi (for short 'the First Appellate Court') setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2007 passed in O.S.No.344/2001 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge Junior Division, Gulbarga (hereinafter 'the Trial Court'). The Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreed the suit.

2. The parties are referred by their original ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The suit schedule property as described in Para No.2 of the plaint is:

Premises bearing Corporation 119 situated behind KPTCL Office on the Court road, station area Gulbarga bounded on the:

East : Road leading to the Court

West: 20 feet vide lane

North: Government Road

South: Lane and thereafter the House of Doctor

Yelsingikar

(hereinafter referred as 'suit property')

4. The brief case of the plaintiff:

(a) That the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property which is surrounded on all sides by a compound wall. That the name of the plaintiff is entered in the Municipal records and he is paying property taxes to the Corporation. That there are some rooms in the premises which he has given on rent to his tenants namely, Ningappa, Ambawwa, Ramachandra, Ratnabai and Baburao, who are living in their respective portion.

(b) That one Mallikarjun s/o Shivalingappa Gandhigudi and Lalitabai w/o Vijayakumar had tried to interfere with the possession of the aforesaid tenants, resulting in said tenants filing a suit in O.S.No.745/1997 in which an exparte order of temporary injunction was granted on 09.12.1997 which was in force till filing of the present suit.

(c) That the defendants without having any thing to do with the ownership or the possession of the suit property came to the aforesaid tenants of the plaintiff and asked them to vacate the suit schedule property and tried to take forcible possession which was resisted.

(d) That being apprehensive of defendants trying to take forcible possession of the suit property, he approached the Court seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

5. Brief case of the defendants:

(a) That the claim of plaintiff being the owner in possession of the suit property and his name having been entered into the revenue records and he inducting tenants into the rooms existing thereon is specifically denied.

(b) That the suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction without seeking declaration of title and possession when he is neither in actual not constructive possession of the suit property was not maintainable.

(c) That suit property in fact consists of plot Nos.1, 2 and 3 having provisional CTS.No.12 and final CTS.No.1017 of Sheet No.104 of Block VIII bearing Corporation No.119 situated in Khadar Hussain Layout formed in 13 acres and 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 Doddapur in Gulbarga bounded on the:East: Road leading to Court; West: 20 ft. wide lane; North: road; South: Nala and thereafter house of Sri. Yelsangikar.

(d) That the property as described in the written statement formed part of 13 acres 10 guntas of Doddapur Gulbarga, which belonged to one late Mohd. Khadar Hussain Sayeed. A layout known as Khadar Hussain Layout approved by the competent authority was formed in the said land. After his death, his son Retired Brg. Gulam Mohammed Sayeed had become absolute owner of the suit property. That after his death in October 1992 his wife Dr. Banoo Tahira Sayeed, Mrs. Siraj Fatima and Mohammad Mujahid Sayeed became successor to the said property. That they sold different portions of the suit property in favour of each of the defendants under separate registered deeds of sale bearing Nos.41094114 on 09.10.2000 and the defendants were accordingly put in possession of each of the port