The necessity of proving legal possession and ownership in injunction cases, alongside the requirement for proper documentation, is vital for the court's decisions on property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents on admission.

2. The appellants, who were defendants before the Trial Court, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur, in O.S.No.140/2012, which was confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, sitting at Savanur, in R.A. No.14/2019 dated 03.12.2022.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, contending that the said property is a residential house and open site bearing No.465, situate at Ward No.IV, Block No.VIII of Savanur Taluk, measuring 68ft. x 17ft. 3 inch. It is further contended that the plaintiff, along with her son and daughter, are the absolute owners and are in lawful and peaceful possession of the suit property, having inherited it from their ancestors. She has been paying regular house tax to the concerned authorities, and her name appears in the municipal records. Except for herself, no one else has any right, title, or interest over the said property.

4. She has further stated that the defendants are also residing in her colony and that they have no right, title, or interest over the suit property. According to her, the defendants, being rich and politically influential persons, are insisting that she sell the suit property to them. She has alleged that the defendants threatened her, stating that if she did not sell the suit property to them, they would evict her from the said property on 18.04.2012. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against them at the Savanur Police Station, which was registered in Cr. No.51/2012. She has further contended that the defendants are seriously attempting to dispossess her by illegal means. On these grounds, she prayed for a decree in the suit.

5. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court, and defendant No.1 filed a written statement, which was adopted by the other defendants.

6. In the written statement, the defendants denied the plaint averments. They further pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- on 22.03.2003 in favour of defendant No.1, who is the father of defendant Nos.2 to 7. As per the said agreement, a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement itself, and the remaining balance of Rs.56,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the final sale deed. By virtue of the said agreement of sale, possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant No.1 on 22.03.2003 itself, and since then, defendant No.1 along with his sons, the other defendants, have been residing in the suit property.

7. Defendant No.1 asked the plaintiff to execute the final sale deed by receiving the balance consideration amount, but she kept postponing it on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the plaintiff openly stated that she would not execute the sale deed of the suit property and tried to interfere with the defendants’ possession and enjoyment thereof. On one occasion, the plaintiff even attempted to interfere in the suit property, but was unsuccessful due to the timely intervention of adjoining residents. Immediately thereafter, on 19.04.2012 at about 6:30 a.m., defendant No.1 made an application to the Savanur Police Station, and later, on 21.04.2012, lodged a complaint through defendant No.4. In pursuance of the said complaint, the plaintiff was arrested