Point of Law: Presumption that possession goes with title applies to a case like this where neither party has been able to prove or establish possession, but one of the parties is able to show its title.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed praying to setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010 passed by District & Session Judge, Fast Tract Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in RA No.48/2008 and judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 passed by II Additional Civil Judge (Jn. Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in OS No.312/1998.

2. The appellant was the plaintiff and respondents No.1 and 2 were defendants No.1 and 2 in OS No.312/1998.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the reliefs of permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is a absolute owner for having purchased the suit schedule property from Smt. V. Jayalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 7.4.1998 and he is in possession of the same. It is stated that originally suit schedule property belongs to defendant No.1, he has executed GPA in favour of Smt. V. Jayalakshmi authorizing her deal with the property. The katha of the suit schedule property was in the name of defendant No.1 and he authorized Smt. V. Jayalakshmi to deal with the property on the basis of GPA. As the original sale deed was not returned by the Sub-Registrar’s office, the plaintiff could not get katha transferred in his name in the panchayath records. It is stated that defendant No.1 has no right over the suit schedule property and he is making efforts to sell the suit schedule property to the third parties. It is stated that the plaintiff has put up barbed fencing to the suit schedule property. As defendants started interfering with his possession and trying to remove the barbed wire fencing, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

5. The defendant No.1 and 2 has filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Smt. V. Jayalakshmi has no right over the suit schedule property and to convey the said property in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 7.4.1998 is created document in order to knock off the property belonging to defendant No.1. It is stated that defendant No.1 has not executed any document in favour of Smt. V. Jayalakshmi. The authorities have no rights under law to effect changes in the demand register extract. The GPA and affidavit produced by the plaintiff are created documents, the alleged sale deed has been executed by Smt. V. Jayalakshmi the mother of the plaintiff and therefore does not confer title on the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. It is stated that defendant No.1 is absolute owner of the property and he has conveyed the said property in favour of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated 28.4.1998. The defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. It is stated that the defendant No.1 was absolute owner of the suit schedule property since the date of grant made by the Government in his favour by issuing “Hakku Patra” in the year 1972. All the revenue records were standing in the name of defendant No.1. The Khatha of the suit schedule property has been changed in the name of defendant No.2, with this they prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. On the basis of the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues;

1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?

3. To what order or decree?

7. The plaintiff’s Special Power of Attorney holder has been examined as PW 1 and got marked as Ex.P.1 to 15 and defendant No.1 has not lead evidence and produced any documents. The defendant No.2 has filed his evidence affidavit but the same has been discarded by the trial Court by order dated 19.6.2007.

8. The trial Court after hearing arguments and appre