The court upheld the permanency of the plaintiffs' possession of the property, validating their ownership over defendants' claims despite the absence of substantial evidence on defendants' part.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and both the Courts have comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and granted the relief of permanent injunction and hence, this second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property belongs to them and they are the absolute owners and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which was acquired under inheritance and katha of the suit schedule property is also standing in their names. It is contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule property by putting haystack, manure pit and tethering cattle includes dumping size stones for fencing around the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and they are totally strangers to suit schedule property and unnecessarily interfering and trying to disposes them from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in the first week of January, 2014 and the plaintiffs resisted their acts but it went vain. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the defendants and other five members of their family are enjoying the property since their ancestors. It is an ancestral property of themselves and plaintiffs in totally seven family members. They also constructed cow shed and putting haystack in the property to an extent of east to west 30 feet and north to south 50 feet out of total measurement of east to west 82 feet and north to south 50 feet in the suit schedule property and it is not the exclusive property of plaintiffs alone. Moreover, towards western side, there is a vacant site and nobody is in the possession of the same. Towards eastern side of the suit schedule property, the brother of plaintiffs Laxminarayanappa, his wife Sonnamma and their children Aswathappa and Venkatanarayanareddy were constructed house. The total property is enjoyed by themselves and other four members of the family in house list property. Therefore, the question of interfering does not arise. The plaintiffs did not made Laxminarayanappa’s wife and children as parties. Hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint as well as written statement, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P8. On the other hand, defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and one witness as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D11. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. The Trial Court taken note of evidence of PW1 wherein he categorically deposed that the suit schedule property belongs to him and his brothers and also produced house list documents and tax paid receipt to show that the property belongs to them through their father and claims that suit schedule property is totally measuring east to west 82 feet and north to south 52 feet and to the extent of 15 x 20 feet, shed has been constructed and also given description of the property.

6. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of the PW1 in the cross-examination that defendants admits