The appellate court upheld that lawful possession is essential for granting an injunction, and failure to establish this led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Aravind Reddy H., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment passed in RA No.18/2015 whereby the judgment an decree of injunction passed in favour of the appellant in O.S.No.171/2012 came to be reversed.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

4.1. A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.171/2012 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property):

Hut and basement in Site No. 46, Lane No. 169 and old katha No. 148 situated at Hosayalanadu Village, Hiriyur Taluk mensuring 85 X50 Feet and bounded as follows:

4.2. Suit on due contest, came to be decreed.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.18/2015.

6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, allowed the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

7. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court, in this appeal on following grounds and raising substantial questions of law:

GROUNDS

The judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is highly illegal, perverse, besides being erroneous, as such same is liable to be set aside.

It is submitted that the appellate court not at all considered the well-reasoned findings recorded by the trial court, as such same is bad in law.

It is submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, the plaintiff has specifically contended in the plaint that suit property was originally belongs to one K. Ningappa, the said person was executed the agreement to sell in favor of plaintiff dated:16.06.1990 and delivered the vacant possession of the entire suit property, the Gram Panchayat after recording the statement of said K. Ningappa changed the katha in the name plaintiff, it is further submitted that as per the documents produced by the plaintiff katha No.148 standing in the name of plaintiff in the panchayat records from year 1997-98 till 2006-2007, as per Ex.P-6 demand register extract property measuring about 85X50 feet is standing in the name of plaintiff, the trial court considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly decreed the suit, but the appellate court without reversing the well- reasoned findings recorded by the trial court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, as such same is bad in law.

It is submitted that it is the specific case of the defendant in her written statement that she purchased the suit property from K. Ningappa in the year 1990 measuring 42.5X50 feet, the defendant in order to prove she purchased the suit property from said K. Ningappa nothing has been produced before the trial court, therefore the trial court considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff decreed the suit, but the appellate court without considering said facts allowed the appeal, as such the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court is bad in law and same is liable to be set aside.

It is submitted