In property disputes, a suit for injunction must assert substantial rights rather than mere possession claims for it to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

Plaintiffs are before this Court in this appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 26.02.2020 passed in OS No.273/2015 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gadag (for short ‘Trial Court’), dismissing their suit seeking relief of mandatory and permanent injunction, which has been confirmed by the judgement and order dated 17.08.2021 passed in RA No.65/2020 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag (for short ‘First Appellate Court’).

2. Suit schedule properties consist of house property bearing G.P.No.30A/2, 30B, open site VPC No.27, house property bearing VPC No.30A/1, and compound wall on the southern boundary of property bearing VPC No.27 all are situated at Binkadakatti village, Taluk and District Gadag belong to the plaintiffs. A hand sketch is produced along with the plaint. The disputed area is shown between letters ‘AB’ upto ‘V’ compound wall and ‘VC’ portion of an area in the plaint sketch.

2.1. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of house properties bearing Nos.30A/2 and 30B which are shown by letters ‘AGHI’ in the hand sketch produced along with the plaint. Plaintiff No.3 is the owner and in possession of house property bearing VPC No.30A/1 which is shown by letters ‘GHIJKLMN’. Plaintiff No.3 is also in possession and enjoyment of the open site bearing panchayat No.27 which is shown by letters ‘ABCDEFG’.

2.2. Properties bearing VPC Nos.28 and 29 which are situated on the southern side of the property bearing VPC No.27 presently belonged to the defendants.

2.3. That there is a wall as shown in the hand sketch between the points ‘A’ and ‘B’, ‘B’ and ‘V’ and thereafter ‘C’ on the southern side of the property in VPC No.27. That about two years ago, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have demolished the said wall and constructed a new RCC house and a staircase. It is further contended that the defendants after demolishing the wall between the points ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the hand sketch have created an access through the properties of the plaintiffs to reach the road on its northern side. That defendants by placing the window and drainage in the newly constructed portion have caused inconvenience and hardship to the plaintiffs. That the defendants have no right to demolish the wall at ‘ABVC’ points and to create any opening towards the properties of the plaintiffs.

2.4. That there is a road existing towards western side of the properties belonging to defendant Nos.1 to 4. There is no access to the properties of the defendants through the properties of the plaintiffs except the western road existing in between the houses of the defendant No.3 and Ramesh Kelludeppa Chawakkanavar and Vasantareddi Tirlapur now held by Indrawwa Inamati.

2.5. Since, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have colluded with each other and trying to trespass into the properties of the plaintiffs without having any right to enter upon the same by causing damage to the southern and eastern wall of the plaintiffs’ house, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to close the area shown by letters ‘V’ and ‘C’ and the area between the letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the hand sketch by constructing a compound wall and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs.

3. Defendants in the written statement have denied the existence and description of the suit properties. It is contended that the property bearing VPC Nos.28 and 29 of Binkadakatti village were owned by the common ancestors of