A valid grant certificate establishes rightful ownership and possession, and any interference without a legitimate claim constitutes a legal basis for injunction.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendant assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below wherein plaintiff's suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S.No.115/2007 is decreed and defendant is restrained from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff has instituted a bare suit for injunction in respect of property bearing Sy.No.88. The plaintiff is asserting title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contends that the competent authority has granted suit property to his father in LND No.(M) 2911/78-79 and has issued grant certificate on 30.11.1979.

Therefore, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that his father was in exclusive possession as absolute owner since 1979 till his demise. The plaintiff has further pleaded that his father died on 27.09.2000 and he being class-I heir has inherited to the property left behind by his father. The plaintiff contends that his father was paying tax to the Government and post grant, the authority have surveyed and a rough sketch is prepared in respect of property. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant without any semblance of right and title is highhandedly interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession.

4. The defendant, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire claim made by the plaintiff. The defendant on the contrary contended that the grant certificate on which plaintiff is relying is a fraudulent and created. The defendant further contended that he along with his brother namely B.C.Krishna Reddy are joint family members and Government has granted the suit land namely plot Nos.10 and 11 to his brother. The defendant claimed that the land grant committee after due enquiry has granted the suit property and possession is delivered to his brother and therefore, defendant contended that he along with his brother are in possession of 1 acre and another strip of 1 acre 23 guntas in Sy.No.88.

5. The plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence.

6. The trial Court having taken cognizance of the original grant certificate vide Ex.P-1 held that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that suit property was granted to plaintiff's father. While examining the rebuttal evidence, trial Court was not inclined to take cognizance of the said document. While examining the rebuttal evidence, trial Court was of the view that the land granted to defendant does not indicate specific boundaries. The trial Court also held that these documents on which defendant is placing reliance are Xerox copies. Taking note of Ex.P-1 which is the original grant certificate, trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving his lawful possession and interference. Consequently, suit is decreed.

7. The defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court has independently assessed the entire material on record. The appellate Court referring to grant certificate found that plaintiff's father was granted 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.88 and also found that the grant certificate discloses boundaries. While taking note of the revenue records vide Exs.P-4 and P-6, appellate Court was of the view that the suit property is admittedly standing in the name of plaintiff's father. While taking note of Ex.P-9, appellate Court found that based on grant certificate issued to plaintiff's father, mutation was effected under Ex.P-9 which is dated 22.07.2007. The appellate Court while taking cognizance of Ex.P-10 which is the revenue sketch found that plaintiff's father is in exclusive possession of the suit property. The appellate Court held that the reve