A claimant must establish legal ownership to obtain an injunction; granting an injunction based on a dismissed declaration suit is contrary to established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)

This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012, passed in R.A.No.46/2007 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri and the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2007, passed in O.S.No.207/2004 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants, for a declaration of title and consequential relief of a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the joint family of plaintiff No.1 and his brothers, including defendant No.2, who is the elder brother of plaintiff No.1. In 1956, plaintiff No.1, defendant No.2, Govindappa and another brother of plaintiff No.1, late Rangashamanna and his wife Narasamma, orally partitioned their joint family properties including the suit schedule property. In the said oral partition, the eastern half portion of suit property fell to the share of plaintiff No.1, and the western half portion of the suit property fell to the share of Govindappa. The parties are enjoying the suit schedule property as per the partition; the khata and pahani, including the suit schedule properties, were continued as per the previous entry untill 1984-85. In 1979, differences arose between plaintiff No.1 and other sharers, for which plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.27/1979 regarding other properties. Another suit was filed by plaintiff No.2 and his brothers in O.S.No.175/1981 and the suit in O.S.No.27/1979 was withdrawn. During the pendency of a suit in O.S.No.175/1981, the plaintiffs, Govindappa and other two sons entered into a compromise, and a palupatti was executed on 15.11.1984, adjusting their shares in which the suit schedule property was the subject matter. In terms of palupatti, the entire suit schedule property was given to plaintiff No.1 and Govindappa, who had taken a full share in the well in-lieu of the land. After the palupatti, the suit in O.S.No.175/1981 was withdrawn. The plaintiffs are residing jointly and enjoying the property. It is contended that defendant No.2 and his sons got divided the joint family properties and one of the properties fell to the share of Shivaramanna, who is the son of defendant No.2 and his son sold one of the properties in favour of son of plaintiff No.1. It is contended that in last two years, differences arose between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 regarding the joint enjoyment of their share. Defendant No.2 has preferred a revenue appeal in RRT (A) No.54/2003-04, and defendant No.2 also filed suit in O.S.No.68/2004 on the file of learned Civil Judge, (Sn.Dn.), Madhugiri, against plaintiff No.1 and his sons alleging that no partition has taken place. The present suit schedule property was not included in O.S.No.68/2004. It is contended that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property, and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the entire averments made in the plaint and also denied the prior partition and filed a suit in O.S.No.27/1979 and O.S.No.175/1981. It is contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled t