A plaintiff can seek permanent and mandatory injunctions based on established possession of the property, regardless of whether a declaration of title has been formally sought.

JUDGMENT :

(H.P. SANDESH, J.)

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, specifically pleaded before the Trial Court that originally suit property was belongs to Srinivasa S/o late Ramaiah and Smt.Venkatalakshmamma W/o late Ramaiah as the plaintiff obtained the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1994. Thereafter, necessary documents were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Since, then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has also got converted the property into the site. The defendant being the neighbourer of the property of the plaintiff, has encroached an area measuring East to West -12 feet, North to South – 9 fee and constructed the house. Though the plaintiff has conducted panchayath in this regard, the defendant did not heeded the words of the panchayathdars and he is trying to put up construction over the encroached area of the plaintiffs. Hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed written statement contending that the suit itself is not maintainable and further contended that site property bearing municipal old assessment No.2154 and new assessment No.2192 measuring East-West-30 feet and North-South-50 feet situated at Kikkerammana Kottalu belonging to Town municipality was purchased by him on 18.07.1987 from one Yallappa S/o Nanjaiah. After purchase of the said property, having obtained license from the town municipality concerned with respect to construction of house in the measurement of East to West -2.6 feet and North to South – 3.9 feet by leaving set back measuring East to West – 3.3 feet and North to South – 4.6 feet constructed a Mangalore tiled house and also grown 2 coconut saplings towards southern side of his house. ON 20.12.1999 by obtaining license from the town municipality, Holenarasipura, he got demolished the Mangalore tiled hose and has constructed RCC house on the same dimension and in possession of the house. In the site of the defendant, there existed kote agalu on the southern direction – 30 feet. He has put up barbed fence by installing pillars on the southern side form the said kote agalu. The kote agalu in the width of 30 feet is in existence between the property of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is also having knowledge of the said fact. The plaintiff has filed the suit only with an intention to trouble the defendant and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues with regard to permanent injunction as issue Nos.1 to 3 and also addl. issue is framed in view of the specific pleading that the defendant had encroached suit schedule property and also in view of pleading of the defendant addl. issue was framed with regard to the existence of Kote agalu measuring width of 30 feet in between the plaintiff and the defendant’s property as contended by the defendant. The parties have lead their evidence and plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The defendant also examined himself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21. The Court Commissioner Sri.Kodandaramaiah is also examined as Ex.C.1 and got marked Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record as