The court upheld the validity of the plaintiff's ownership and lawful possession based on a gift deed, granting a permanent injunction despite the defendants' claims and pending civil appeal.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned appeal is filed by defendants assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.25248/2019 wherein the Court of first instance has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff, asserting herself to be the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Site No. 37, measuring 224.96 sq. mts., situated in Gavipuram Extension, H.S.B.S. Layout, instituted a suit in O.S. No. 24258/2019 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiff contended that her mother was a member of the Gavipuram House Building Co-operative Society, which had acquired Survey No. 42/68. Based on such acquisition, the said Society allotted the suit site to her mother, and a registered sale deed was executed in her favour on 30.07.2003. It is further contended that the plaintiff’s mother subsequently executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, pursuant to which the plaintiff claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She asserts that she has also availed a bank loan and obtained a sanctioned plan for construction of a residential building. However, during the course of construction, the defendants allegedly interfered with her possession, thereby compelling her to institute the present suit for injunction simpliciter.

4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, denying all material allegations made in the plaint. The defendants contended that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact of having earlier instituted a suit in O.S. No. 839/2019 against them and subsequently withdrawing the same. On that ground, the defendants questioned the maintainability of the present suit. Additionally, it was contended that the acquisition made in favour of the Gavipuram House Building Co-operative Society was quashed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 1845/1990. Therefore, the defendants submitted that there exists a serious cloud over the plaintiff’s title. In view of the same, the defendants argued that a bare suit for injunction, without seeking the relief of declaration, is not maintainable.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is absolute owner of suit schedule property obtained under gift from her mother on 21/11/2015 and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are causing interference to her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the relief sought for?

5. What order or decree?"

6. Plaintiff and defendants in order to substantiate their respective claims, led in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff examined