In property disputes, a plaintiff must provide clear evidence of lawful possession and ownership, especially when the title is contested; failure to do so may result in dismissal of claims for injunction.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for admission.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under the Darkasth long ago. Accordingly, khata came to be mutated in his name. Since, from the date of acquisition he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner. Defendants being stranger to the suit schedule property having no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule property tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property besides trying to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit.

3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaintiff's right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. It is contended that one Nagappa @ Durgappa had three sons by name Honnappa -defendant No.1, Thimmappa - plaintiff and Ramachandrappa and three daughters by name Eramma, Kamalamma and Gangamma. Daughters of said Nagappa were married long ago. Nagappa and his sons continued to enjoy their family properties. Nagappa @ Durgappa died about 35 years' ago. The joint family was in unauthorized occupation and possession of suit schedule property. Nagappa died prior to the grant, plaintiff being wordly wise man having the knowledge about grant, with the consent of his brothers, made an application before the revenue authority to get the land granted in his favour. Joint family paid the upset price to get the grant in favour of plaintiff and accordingly, suit schedule property was granted in favour of plaintiff under Darkasth. Plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Ramachandrappa got the suit schedule property partitioned about 15 years ago orally. In the said partition, eastern 1/2 portion of suit schedule property i.e. 3 acres had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and western 1A portion had fallen to the share of plaintiff. Defendant has been enjoying his share as absolute owner. When he made an application before revenue authority to get the khata in his name, plaintiff refused to give consent. Taking advantage of strained relationship plaintiff tried to dispossess him.

4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed an issues, whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference and whether entitled for relief of permanent injunction?

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P30 and examined one witness as PW-2. On the other hand defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D8 and Ex.C1 came to be marked during cross examination of PW-1.

6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that, when the plaintiff claims that property is a granted land and the same is granted under Darkasth in the year 1965, in order to substantiate the same, he has not produced any document, even plaintiff has been recalled and got marked 24 documents and it is the claim of the plaintiff that suit schedule property Sy.No.127/P2 measuring 6 acres was granted to him under Darkasth and no such document is placed before the Court. But in the RTC, name of the plaintiff is appearing as per Darkasth and also he has produced RTC which has marked as Exs.P1 to P20, but as per Exs.P12, P13, P14, P15, the name of one Korachara Thimmappa S/o Thimmappa was appearing in respect of Sy.No.127/P2 measuring 6 acres. But the plaintiff has to prove that he also called as Korachara Thimmappa. But as per Exs.P16 to P20 the name of plaintiff was shown as Thimmappa S/o Nagappa. But as per the documents produced by the plaintiff himself at Ex.P27, the Sy.No.127/P2 measuring 6 acres is a Government l