An agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights; lawful possession is required for injunction, and plaintiffs must seek title declaration against third parties.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

Challenging judgment and decree dated 14.08.2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Shivamogga, in RA no.112/2005, this appeal is filed.

2. Appellants are legal representatives of original plaintiff in OS no.647/1993 filed for permanent injunction restraining defendant, her agents, etc. from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Sy.no.58 (VS no.3) measuring 1 Acre 15 guntas of Kashipura Village, Shivamogga Taluk ('suit property' for short).

3. In plaint, it was stated in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 22.01.1992 executed by Chandrappa S/o Muniswami agreeing to sell suit property for total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and receiving Rs.80,000/- as advance sale consideration, plaintiff was put in possession and was cultivation of same. And, without any manner of right, title or interest over suit property, defendant tried to take possession forcibly with help of adjacent owners for forming layout sell away sites to innocent strangers for wrongful gain. And that on 24.06.1993, defendant came to suit property with rowdy elements, attempted to dig drain and form road. With great difficulty, plaintiff resisted said illegal Acts of defendant. As he perceived imminent threat of dispossession, suit was filed.

4. On appearance, original defendant filed written statement denying plaint averments as well as plaintiff’s claim of being in possession in pursuance of agreement of sale. Title of plaintiff’s vendor was also disputed. Allegation of defendant disturbing plaintiff’s possession was denied. It was stated, defendant was in possession and enjoyment as owner of property. It was stated Surveyor had assigned V.S.no.1 to properties no. 58, 59, 60 and 61; V.S.no.2 to properties no.55, 56 and 57 and V.S.no.3 to properties no.54, 53, 51 and 50. And as per sale deed dated 19.04.1975 defendant had sold Sy.no.2 and 3, but not sold any property to Chandra - plaintiff's vendor. Boundaries and extent mentioned in Sale Deed would indicate defendant's possession of very same extent claimed by plaintiff, indicating that plaintiff had wrongly mentioned boundaries of defendant’s property. It was stated, plaintiff had filed false suit in collusion with Chandra for unlawful gain and that neither of them had any right over Sy.no.2 measuring 3 Acres 19 guntas and PR no.1 measuring 1 Acre 19 guntas totally measuring 4 Acres 38 guntas. It was stated, boundary description of defendant's property comprising of land in two survey numbers was on East by land of Hulugamma; West by land of defendant - Sy.no.1, North by boundary of Somenakoppa village and South by Keretheluve. It was alleged, suit was filed without cause of action and plaintiff not having any right over suit property, without paying proper Court fee etc. and sought dismissal of suit.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit land?

2. Does he prove the alleged interference by the defendant?

3. What decree or order?

6. In trial, plaintiff deposed as PW.1 and got mark Exhibits P1 to P37