JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as ‘CPC’) by the plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below in O.S. No.33/1996 and R.A. No.11/2002.

2. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property which is a vacant site measuring 81ft. x 90ft was owned and possessed by her, having derived it in terms of a gift deed executed by her brother Bhagavan Singh who was tenant of original jodidars of Bhavanahalli village. It is claimed that the defendants who are residents of the same village, though not concerned with the plaintiff’s family were trying to take forcible possession of suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who claimed that the suit property was assessed in the records of village panchayat as property No.193/ new number 23. They claimed that their father, Ramsingh had purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 29.06.1952 from one Syed Gafar, Mirja Ali, Syed Mohammed, Syed Hussain, B.H. Bhavani Singh, B.H. Govinda Singh, B. Narayanasingh, B. Shamsingh and others. They also claimed that after the death of their father, their names were entered in the Tax Demand Register and that they had paid the property tax to the Panchayat. They also claimed that they were in possession of suit property and since the plaintiff and her sons were attempting to enter into possession of the suit property, they filed O.S. No.505/1995 where an order of temporary injunction was granted against the sons of the plaintiff. Hence, they claimed that plaintiff had no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

ii) Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?

iii) Whether plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by defendants?

iv) Whether defendants prove that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property since their father B. Ram Singh purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 29.06.1952?

v) Whether defendants further prove that they are in lawful possession of suit schedule property?

vi) To what reliefs the parties are entitled to?

vii) What order or decree?

4. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and she examined two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and they marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-10, while defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.2 and they marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D-7.

5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was unable to prove her title to the suit property, but since the suit property lay adjacent to the house property where the plaintiff was residing, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, and therefore, decreed the suit in part for the relief of perpetual injunction.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of a decree of perpetual injunction, the defendants filed R.A. No.11/2002. The First Appellate Court summoned the record, framed points for consideration and based on the oral and documentary evidence, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

8. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law –

i. Whether the lower Appellate Court was right and justified in brushing aside the documents i.e., Ex.P-3 (copy license), Ex.P-4 (demand register extract), Ex.P-7 (another demand register extract) and Ex.P-9 (certificate issued by the Village Panchayat) while holding that the trial Court was in e