The central legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for injunction, the court's principal obligation is to examine the plaintiff's lawful possession, and the identification of property based on registered Sale Deeds is not within the scope of such suits.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by the defendant.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking for a decree of permanent injunction. It was his case that the suit schedule property, which was described as land bearing Sy.No.203/3 measuring 5 acres 21 guntas, was purchased by his father on 14/6/1964 and ever since, their family was in possession of the same. He stated that in the partition dtd. 12/12/1994, the suit property, which was the subject matter of the said partition, was allotted to him. He stated that on the basis of the said partition, the revenue record was mutated and his name was entered in the revenue record. He stated that the suit schedule property was originally a part of Sy.No.203 and after a survey, it had been renumbered as Sy.No.203/3. He stated that he had raised arecanut and saguvani trees and had also constructed a house in the said property. It was alleged that there was interference with his possession and hence, he was constrained to file a suit.

3. The defendant contested the said suit. He stated that the schedule was not properly described by giving boundaries and only the survey number was stated and the boundary stones had been showed as its boundaries. It was stated that the suit was filed only to encroach upon his property.

4. He stated that he had also purchased a part of Sy.No.203 measuring 20 guntas (70 feet X 312 feet) from Nadiga Gopal Rao under a registered Sale Deed dtd. 13/12/1962. He stated that he had purchased the said property in order to construct a house and the 20 guntas of land that he had purchased was adjacent to Soraba - Siddapura road. However, he stated that by oversight the boundaries were wrongly mentioned in the Sale Deed and instead of mentioning that the road was situated on the southern side, it was stated that the road was situated on the northern side. He stated that after realising the mistake, the vendor had executed a registered Rectification Deed on 12/4/2007.

5. It was also stated that the plaintiff had approached the Survey Department and got Sy.No.203 sub-divided without notice to him and the plaintiff had also secured a sketch indicating the land that he had purchased and this sketch was not legal and a dispute regarding the survey was pending before the Tahsildar.

6. The defendant also went on to state that in the Sale Deed of the plaintiff's father, it had been stated that to the eastern side, property of H.S.Manjappa i.e., the appellant herein was situated, instead of stating that it was the property of Nadiga Ranganatha Rao and H.S.Manjappa. It was also stated that boundary of the southern side was also wrongly mentioned as Soraba-Chandragutti Road, instead of mentioning it as H.S.Manjappa's property and Government road. He also stated that without rectifying the said mistakes, the plaintiff had filed the suit.

7. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the description of the suit property by the plaintiff was proper and correct and the plaintiff had also proved that he was in possession of the same and there was interference by the defendant.

8. In order to come to the said conclusion, the Trial Court relied upon the deposition of the defendant, in which, it was stated that the plaintiff was residing in the suit schedule property and had raised arecanut and saguvani trees and had also constructed a house. The Trial Court also noticed that the defendant had not taken any steps for rectification of the Sale Deed by filing a proper suit and the plaintiff was not a party to the Rectification Deed, so as to bind him to the said Rectification Deed. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal.

10. In appeal, the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

11. It is against these concurring judgments and decrees, the present second appea