The nature of kharab land, its attachment to the property, and the application of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 13/11/2017, passed in R.A.No.84/2015, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property is that one Venkataswamy Bhovi was the absolute owner of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and he was in physical possession and enjoyment of item No.1 of suit schedule property. The said Venkataswamy Bhovi for his legal necessity sold the said property by way of sale deed dtd. 12/3/2008 and plaintiff No.1 had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that plaintiff No.1 was the absolute owner of item No.2 of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff No.1 for his legal necessity had sold the property to one A.M.Lakshmi Narayana (defendant No.7). Later, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.7 for their legal necessities sold item No.2 of the suit property to plaintiff No.2 by way of registered sale deed dtd. 12/11/2009 and by virtue of the absolute sale deed dtd. 12/11/2009, plaintiff No.2 had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. By virtue of the absolute sale deeds dtd. 12/3/2008 and 12/11/2009, all the relevant documents are changed into the name of plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property item Nos.1 and 2 and the names of the plaintiffs finds a place in respect of suit schedule property item Nos.1 and 2 and the revenue authorities have recognized the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property item Nos.1 and 2 and the mutation proceedings in M.R.No.9/2009-10 and 4/2009-10 clearly proves that the sale deeds have been already acted upon and the RTC pahanis for the year 2009-10 standing in the name of the plaintiffs. It is further contended that subsequent to the sale deeds dtd. 12/3/2008 and 12/11/2009, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property item Nos.1 and 2 and are raising seasonal crops thereon like ragi, avare, thogare and other crops in the suit schedule property item No.1 and 2 and the said aspect is also well within the knowledge of the defendants and the defendants are estopped from contending otherwise.

4. The defendant No.6 had filed an objection not to effect khatha in the name of plaintiff No.1 in respect of suit schedule property item No.1 and the said objection was converted into a proceedings and the said proceedings in RRT Dis.CR.12/2009-10 had ended in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 22/12/2009. It is further contended that the defendants have absolutely no right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property item Nos.1 and 2 and the defendants were never in possession of suit schedule property at any point of time in any manner subsequent to the sale deeds dtd. 12/3/2008 and 12/11/2009. The defendants and their family members illegally made attempts to trespass and interfere over the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property item Nos.1 and 2 and hence without any other alternative, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.2 to 7 were placed exparte and defendant No.1 filed a detailed written statement denying the entire averments of the plaint. The defendant No.1 contended that the description of the suit property is false and incorrect. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed this suit in order to claim the property in possession of defendant No.1. By showing the northern boundary as property of Chickabodappa have included the property in possession of defendant No.1. The land described as item No.2 is not measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, but measuring 4 acres. Further, it is contended that he has been under Bagurhukum