The legal principle established is that in disputes over possession and ownership, the registered title holder is presumed to be in possession unless the contrary is proven, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming possession.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenging impugned order dtd. 25/1/2022 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belgavi, in O.S.No.276/2021 on I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, this appeal is filed.

2. Appellant herein is plaintiff, while respondents were defendants in suit and will be referred as such.

3. Plaintiff filed O.S.no.276/2021 seeking :

a) for declaring sale deed dtd. 6/12/2013 executed by defendant no. 2 by himself by acting as power of attorney of defendant no.1 are null and void and not binding on plaintiff company;

b) for declaring sale deed dtd. 11/8/2021 executed by defendant no. 2 in favor of defendant no. 3 and 4 is null and void and not binding on plaintiff company;

c) directing defendant no. 1 to execute forthwith sale deed in favor of plaintiff company;

d) Restraining defendants, their agents, successor-in, interest, henchman or anybody claiming under them or on their behalf by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with and disturbing the plaintiff's company peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of suit properties; and such other reliefs.

4. In said suit, plaintiff - company filed IA no.2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'CPC' for short), praying for temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties till disposal of suit.

5. In affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated that suit properties were situated at Ningenahatti village. That plaintiff company was engaged in manufacture of sugar and allied products and cogeneration of electricity at its manufacturing unit situated in Channehatti-Rajgoli KH tq: Chandgad on Kanataka-Maharastra State border. It was stated that plaintiff was owning certain lands in State of Karnataka also. It was further stated that Hemarus Technologies Ltd. incorporated on 27/1/2006, changed its name to Hemarus Industries Ltd. on 28/12/2010, when it was taken over by plaintiff company. Its name was changed again to Olam Agro India Ltd. on 22/7/2014. thereafter on 16/4/2016, plaintiff was converted from public to private company. Thus, plaintiff was successor entity of Hemarus Industries Ltd.

6. It was stated that defendant no.1, Sri Vasu Rao A.N. was Vice President of Hemarus Technology Ltd. and was authorized to look after its transactions including purchase and sale of lands / properties for and on behalf of company. He was also authorized to appear and act on behalf of company before all authorities.

7. Likewise defendant no.2 was employed as liaisoning officer of company charged with responsibility of providing necessary documentation and negotiation with land owners. He also approached local authorities for approvals, submitting application etc. Thus, company had placed enormous trust on defendants no.1 and 2 and were given ample power and free hand in matter of establishing sugar factory at Channehatti-Rajgoli KH village. It was also stated that they were paid a total sum of Rs. 3, 64, 72, 950.00 for purchase of 168.47 hectares of land in installments between 27/5/2006 and 17/11/2006. Though plaintiff intended to purchase land directly in his name, in view of legal bar under provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter 'KLR Act' for short), it could do so only after obtaining prior permission. Therefore, it authorized defendant no.1, under a Board resolution, to enter into agreement of sale with owners of land including suit properties herein. He was directed to obtain general powers of attorney from land owners to enable plaintiff company to make use of land immediately pending permission from State government. Defendant no.1 was also required to file application under Sec. 109 of KLR Act. As instructed, defendant no.1 negotiated with owners of suit properties along with defendant no.2 where under land owner Sri Kedari Bhima Badiger executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of defendant no.1 registered