A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 96 of CPC is filed by the appellant-defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2016 passed by the XX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.1136/2013, wherein the Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court in the original suit.

3. Brief facts of the case:

(a) Sri.T.Ramakrishnappa, Sri.Lakshmi hanumantharayappa and Sri.Kempanna (vendors of plaintiff) have purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.45/3 of Gidadakonenahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under the registered sale deed dated 08.11.1958. After the purchase of the said land, their names have been mutated in the revenue records. Based on the application filed by them, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order dated 08.12.2003 for the conversion of land. Thereafter, they have executed a GPA in favour of one Sri.Sachidananda Prasad for the development of their property and for the formation of a residential layout in the said land. The plaintiff has purchased a site (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property') formed in the said layout in Sy.No.45/3 through a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2004. Even several other purchasers have also purchased sites in the layout through various sale deeds. Thereafter, plaintiff applied for katha before the concerned authority. Hence, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant having no manner of right or interest over the suit schedule property was trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.

(b) On service of suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement denying the entire plaint averments. The defendant has stated that Sri.Thammannappa had purchased the land in Sy.No.45/3 vide registered sale deed dated 08.11.1958 in the name of his minor sons, T.Ramakrishnappa, Sri.Lakshmihanumantharayappa and Sri.Kempanna and at that time, the defendant and his brother, Sri.Hanumaiah, were not born. Subsequent to the purchase of the said property, defendant and his brother, Sri.Hanumaiah were born to Thammannappa and thereafter, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property along with his other brothers. It is stated that at no point of time, neither the defendant nor his brothers have executed the Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff nor they have executed any GPA in favour of one Sri.Sachidananda Prasad. It is further stated that in the year 1982, there was a partition among the brothers of the defendant under Panchayath Parikat as per Ex.D-2. Under the said partition, land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.45/3 has fallen to the share of the defendant. From the date of partition, the defendant is in possession of the property.

(c) On hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

a) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

b) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant?

c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction?

d) What order or decree?

(d) In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-16. On behalf of the defendant, he has examined himself as DW-1 and produced documents at Ex.D-1 to D-9. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has answered all the issues in affirmative and accordingly decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this present appeal.

4. Sri.B.S.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant-defendant has raised the following contentions:

a) The father