The plaintiff's entitlement to perpetual injunction was based on proving the antecedent title of Smt. Puttamma to the suit schedule property, as evidenced by revenue documents.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal was filed by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No.222/1998 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2010 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.222/1998 and the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.3/2010. Both the Courts held that the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property as against defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 and his brothers, namely, defendant Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.14 (new No.78) measuring 04 Acres situate at Bargur village, Sompura hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was granted to her motherin-law, Smt. Puttamma, as per the grant certificate dated 03/06/1975 and thereafter she executed a Will dated 16.12.1976. The plaintiff further claimed that after the death of Smt. Puttamma in the year 1977, she became the owner of the suit property and thereafter, the revenue documents were transferred to her name. She contended that the grant in favour of Smt. Puttamma was challenged by defendant No.1 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, which was dismissed and an appeal preferred therefrom before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the Secretary of Revenue Department. Then the Government by order dated 10.12.1979, cancelled the grant in favour of Smt. Puttamma. This order was challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in W.P.No.1361/1980. In the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 24.03.1988, quashed the order dated 10.12.1979. Pursuant to the said order, defendant No.1 in the present suit filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner to take action against the plaintiff under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 15.04.1989, inter alia cancelled the grant made in favour of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff and directed the land to be resumed to the Government and the same was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 03.08.1994. The said orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit before this Court in W.P. No.32940/1994. This Court in terms of the order dated 24.03.1998, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 15.04.1989 and 03.08.1994 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively. Therefore, the plaintiff contended that the defendants had no manner of right, title or interest but were interfering with her possession in the suit property and thus, sought perpetual injunction.

4. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit and claimed that Smt. Puttamma was never in possession of the suit property. They also denied the execution of a Will by Smt. Puttamma in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they were in possession of the property for more than forty years and they are living on the suit properties. They further contended that their possession was evidenced by the revenue records which stood in the name of defendant No.1.

5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following Issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant?

3) What decree or Order?”

6. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. She also examined PWs.2 and 3. Defendant No.3 was examined as DW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D1 to D12.

7. The Trial Court held that the documents marked by the plaintiff indicated that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the plaintiff had acquired the same in t