The court reaffirmed that a permanent injunction regarding immovable property can be granted based on established possession and ownership, despite contesting claims, underscoring the significance of familial partition agreements.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Virupakshaiah P.H., learned counsel for caveator/respondent.

2. Defendants No.1 to 3 are the appellants, challenging the decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1/2016 in respect of immovable property, more fully described herein (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property) whereby the defendants were injuncted from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property which was confirmed in R.A.No.37/2022 by the first appellate Court.

SCHEDULE

An agricultural land bearing its Re.Sy.No.43/2, measuring 0.30 guntas, assessed at Rs.0.71, situated at Kandgal Village, Daanagere Taluk and bounded as hereunder:

East: land belongs to Malleshappa

West: Canal

North: land belongs to Vamadevappa

South: Canal Road and land belongs to Maheshwarappa

3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property contending that the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit property by a registered Sale Deed.

4. Huchha Veerappa, the father of the plaintiff is no more. He had two sons by name Shivalingappa and Vamadevappa. After his death, there was a family partition between Shivalingappa and Vamadevappa. After the death of Shivalingappa who is the father of the plaintiff, there was a partition in the year 1994-95 and in the said partition, property to an extent of 03 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.43/2 was allotted to the share of Vamadevappa and remaining extent of 30 guntas was allotted to the share of Shivalingappa, whereby the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit properties.

5. Defendants, pursuant to the suit summons appeared before the Trial Court, denying the plaint averments and contended that they are the owners of the property in Sy.No.43/2 and by virtue of the alleged partition, the plaintiff is trying to encroach upon the defendants' property and made a false claim and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Learned Trial Judge, after raising necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.37/2022.

8. Learned Judge of the first appellate Court, after securing the records and re-appreciation of the material on record, having heard the argument of the parties and by impugned judgment dated 29.11.2022 dismissed the appeal of the defendants and confirmed the decree of injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the present appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law.

GROUNDS

(i) That the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable under law.

(ii) It is submitted that the Courts below have committed serious material irregularities and illegalities while appreciating the material evidence available on record and the entire approach made by the Courts below into the matter in dispute is erroneous in law.

(iii) It is submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for bare permanent injunction without having possession and without claiming declaration over the suit property. Hence the suit without possession is not maintainable.

(iv) It is submitted that the plaintiff has not explained as to where the suit schedule property is in existence. The plaintiff has failed to produce any documents to show the exact existence of the property. M