A suit for an injunction cannot proceed if the title to the property is under dispute, necessitating resolution through a comprehensive suit rather than a mere injunction based on possession.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI MULIMANI, J.

1. Sri.Sharath S.Gowda, counsel for the appellant, and Sri.Vijaykumara, counsel for caveator/ Respondent No. 1, have appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-45), Bengaluru City.

3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaint averments are these:

The property originally belonged to Sri.Muttayya and his sons, namely Sri.Appayya, Sri.Hanumaiah and Sri.Narasimhaiah. It is said that they had executed a power of attorney in favor of one Sri.Raman. The attorney appears to have sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2012. She had given a public notice in the most prevailing newspaper, "The Hindu" dated 20.07.2012, and there were no claimants or objections from anybody. On 15.09.2013, all of a sudden, the defendants claimed that they were the grandchildren of Sri.Muttayya and the suit schedule property is their ancestral property. Alleging interference, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of an injunction.

After the service of the summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel, and the first defendant filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. He specifically denied the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. Among other grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. The second defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the first defendant. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, the parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2017 decreed the suit and defendants or any other persons claiming under them were restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property.

Hence, the defendant No.2 has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

Counsel appearing for the parties urged several contentions.

Counsel Sri.Sharath S.Gowda, in presenting his argument, strenuously urged that the defendants had specifically denied the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff did not produce the alleged power of attorney. He argued by saying that the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 has summarized the proposition of law. Counsel submits that the decree of the suit is unsustainable in law.

By way of reply to this contention, an attempt is made on behalf of the plaintiff to contend that the attorney, Sri.Raman has sold the property in question in plaintiff's favor. Counsel Sri.Vijaykumara., submits that the plaintiff has proved the prima facie ownership and possession over the suit property as of the date of filing of the suit. He argued by saying that the appellant has not made out any grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Lastly, counsel Sri.Vijaykumara., submits that an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for the production of additional evidence. Counsel, therefore, submits that the same may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed.

Counsel Sri.Sharath S.Gowda., submits that the application is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:

I. Respondent No.1 has not fulfilled the criteria as enumerated under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

II. In a suit for bare injunction, the issue which is required to be proved by the plaintiff is whether he or she is in lawful possession as of the date of filing of the suit.

III. The documents that are fur