A registered sale deed substantiated the plaintiff's claim over properties, and the First Appellate Court erred by disregarding critical evidence regarding possession.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.100 of 2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Channarayappatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings, before the Trial Court, i.e., the appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule properties.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that one D.T.Karna was the owner of the suit schedule properties, and he agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff on 11.08.2000, and executed a sale agreement. Before executing a registered sale deed, said D.T.Karna expired, as such, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.43 of 2004 for the relief of specific performance of the contract, against the legal representatives of the deceased Karna.

6. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, and subsequently, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 24.10.2004. It is contended that the possession was delivered in favour of the plaintiff, and since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.

7. It is contended that the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession, and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

8. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, and the other defendants did not file any written statement. Defendant No.1 denied that D.T.Karna executed a sale agreement dated 11.08.2000, and also denied the filing of a suit in O.S. No.43 of 2004. It is contended that the suit properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiff is their nearest relative and hence, the suit in O.S. No.43 of 2004 came to be decreed by compromise. It is contented that defendant No.1 is the legal heir of D.T.Karna, and after the demise of D.T.Karna, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

9. It is also contended that the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.43 of 2004 is not binding on the defendants. There is no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants and hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

10. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as contended?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant in her lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties as contended?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?

(iv) What Order or Decree?”

11. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined through the power of attorney holder as PW-1, examined three more witnesses as PWs-2 to 4, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to 11.

12. In rebuttal, defendants examined defendant No.4 as DW-1, two witnesses as DWs-2 and 3, and marked 27 documents as Exs-D1 to D27.

13. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing both sides, on assessing the verbal and documentary ev