JUDGMENT :

JYOTI MULIMANI, J.

1. Sri. Varadarajan M.S. learned counsel for appellant and Sri. V. Rangaramu, learned counsel for proposed respondent No. 1 (1 to 4) have appeared through video conferencing.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M. Chamrajnagar.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

4. A Suit was filed for a decree of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property.

5. The plaint averments are as under:

Plaintiff has stated that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his grandfather Venkatashetty. He had executed a sale deed on 23.06.1928 with respect to the suit property in favor of one Chennashetty. That there was also a re-conveyance agreement. Accordingly, Chennashetty executed a document on 06.06.1948. It is stated that Chennashetty returned the original sale deed dated 23.06.1928 to Venkatashetty and also received back the sale consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed from Venkatashetty and he was also put back in possession of the suit schedule property and the same was in the enjoyment of Venkatashetty.

After the death of Venkatashetty, plaintiffs father came into possession of the suit property. That later plaintiff came into possession of the same and enjoying the same in his own right.

When things stood thus defendant No. 1 approached the Commissioner, City Municipality, Chamarajanagar Town seeking Khata change in his favor. In spite of plaintiff filing objections, the Commissioner entered the name of defendant No. 1 as the Khathadar of the suit property. That the plaintiff’s attempt to get the same set aside before the higher authorities was of no avail. Therefore, plaintiff initiated action seeking appropriate reliefs.

6. In furtherance of issue of summons, defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement inter-alia contended that Venkatashetty is brother of Puttashetty. That one Subbamma was the wife of Venkatashetty. That Subbamma was a close relative of Yalakkappana Chennashetty. That at the request of Subbamma, Chennashetty’s daughter in law executed a Hakkupathra on 18.06.1983 in favor of Subbamma.

It is also contended that Subbamma sold the property in question to Sarojamma through a registered sale deed 13.08.1987 and to the sale-deed, plaintiffs’ mother is an attestor. That plaintiff’s grandfather Venkatashetty and plaintiff’s father had retained property measuring 2 ankanas on the north west corners. That the exact measurement of the property so retained is east to west 18 feet and north to south 16 feet. The property was assigned assessment number 513/489.

They also contended that out of this property, plaintiff and his mother Chinnamma and his brother Varadaraju have sold east to west 16 feet and north to south 16 feet to one Manikaymma wife of Najunda Shetty through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.1988. That Manikaymma in turn sold the said property i.e. 16 feet x 16 feet to the second defendant through a registered sale deed dated 18.05.2000. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim to be the owner of the suit schedule property and the documents produced by him are concocted.

In their written statement, they also made a reference to the suit filed by the plaintiff against Sarojamma in O.S. No. 39/1997 with respect to the suit schedule property which came to be dismissed. The first defendant in his written statement further asserted that, he has succeeded to the suit property through Chennashetty and that therefore Khata of the suit property is rightly changed in his favor. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

7. Based upon the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the alleged interference are true?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent injunction as