The defendants needed to establish their right over the disputed land before seeking injunctive relief, particularly in light of the provisions of the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 in O.S.No.124/2013 challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.89/2015 by which it reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.124/2013 decreeing the counter claim filed by the defendant No.2.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing R.S. No.121 of Mathodu village, Holalur hobli, Shivamogga taluk measuring 1.39 guntas and claimed that the said property was granted to him in the year 2004. He claimed that he was cultivating the said property for more than 30 years before the grant and was residing in a house situate on the suit property. He alleged that the defendants were trying to grab the suit property from the plaintiff and hence, sought for perpetual injunction.

3. The defendant No.2 contested the suit and claimed that they were the owners of 6-32 acres along with 18 guntas in kharab Sy. No.121 of Mathodu village and were in possession for more than 50 years. He claimed that his father was cultivating the aforesaid property as a tenant under Kudli Mutt as the said property belonged to the Mutt. The defendants claimed that they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property which was described in the written statement. They claimed that it was the plaintiff who attempted to interfere with their possession on 18/2/2013. The defendants sought counter claim of injunction against the plaintiff in respect of the written statement property.

4. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues :

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?

ii. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by defendants over the suit schedule property?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in this suit?

iv. Whether the defendants are entitled for the relief as sought in counter claim?

v. What order or decree?

5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-39. The defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked documents Exs.D1 to D-26.

6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit property and thus dismissed the suit.

7. Insofar as the counter claim is concerned, the Trial Court noticed that similar suits were filed in O.S. No.173/2006 and O.S. No.718/1991 against the defendants and that the said suits were dismissed. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the defendants were in possession of the written statement properties based on the revenue documents and thus, decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants in respect of the property described in the written statement.

8. In an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court insofar as it related to decreeing the counter claim of the defendants on the ground that the defendants had failed to produce the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.173/2006 and O.S. No.718/1991. It also held that mere dismissal of the said suits cannot not ipso facto result in a presumption that the defendants were in possession of the property described in the written statement. The First Appellate Court also considered Ex.P-26 which disclosed that the father of defendant No.2 (Kasim Sab) had filed an application to Special Deputy Commissioner Inam Abolition which was dismissed on 16/2/1962. It also revealed that defendants No.1 and 2 had filed an application under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act, 1954 on the ground that their father was a tenant in respect of Sy. No.121 of Mathodu village. It was found that the Land Tribunal had passed an order dtd. 4/5/1992 and dismissed the application filed by the defendants 1 and 2. Thereafter the said order was chal