A plaintiff must prove lawful possession of a property to succeed in a permanent injunction case; mere appearances in records are insufficient without corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Smt. Arathi B and Sri K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The present appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.127/2009.

3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

The suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that she is the sister-in-law of Midkey Shedthi, who was the owner of the plaint property. It is the case of the plaintiff that she was residing along with her husband in the plaint property along with Midkey Shedthi and after Midkey Shedthi passed away she has shifted the residence to Nitte, which is 10 km away from the suit property and often she used to visit the suit property and for the remaining period she had kept the suit property as lock and key.

4. It is further contended by the plaintiff that about a week earlier to filing of the suit, defendants started entering into a peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property by storing the granite stones and attempted to demolish the existing structure and constructed new building thereon.

5. It is also contended that defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property and therefore sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement stating that Midkey Shedthi is grand daughter of their senior aunt and Midkey Shedthi executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother, who is not a party to the suit.

7. They further contended that plaintiff has no right whatsoever in respect of suit property nor she had the possession of the suit property anytime earlier to filing of the suit. Even in the time of life of Smt. Midkey Shedthi. The plaintiff being the sister in law of the Midkey Shedthi is trying to lay claim on the suit property detrimental to the interest of defendant and sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. Learned trial Judge after raising necessary issues recorded the evidence of the parties and by considered judgment dated 28.10.2013 decreed the suit as prayed for.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.107/2023.

10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and after raising necessary points, noted that as against the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff, defendants have got the title of the suit property inasmuch as Midkey Shedthi had executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 and her brother, who is not a party to the suit and allowed the appeal and reversed the decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

11. Coordinate bench of this Court by order dated 07.06.2023 has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the First Appellate Court justified in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court justified in holding that plaintiff has failed to prove the possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit?"

12. Smt. Arathi B, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that plaintiff being the sister-in-law (wife of brother of Midkey Shedthi) was in possessi