Judgments in appeal can only be overturned when proved unjust; proper possession and legal title must be substantiated through evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri.Samuel S. Dandin, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.Prabhakar, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1.

2. Present second is filed challenging the decree of injunction granted in favour of contesting respondent No.1 in O.S.No.1901/2006 confirmed in RA No.76/2020.

3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience who are the appellant and respondents in this appeal.

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

4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and among them, defendant No.1 is the vendor along with Parvathamma in respect of the property bearing site No.21, Katha No.25/1/36 formed in property bearing Sy.No.25/1 situated in Seegehalli village, krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet, which is now under the jurisdiction of CMC, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru bounded on East by site No.20, West by site No.22, North by site No.10 and South by the road.

5. Plaintiff contended that defendant No.3 without having any right, title or interest along with other defendants started interfering with the suit property and therefore, plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint. When the police were unable to restrain the illegal interference, plaintiff filed the suit seeking for an order of injunction based on the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and Parvathamma.

6. Learned Trial Judge after entertaining the written statement filed by defendant No.3, noted that defendant No.3 has no independent right over the suit property and plaintiff is in possession of the suit property based on the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and Paravathamma and revenue entries have been mutated in the name of plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.76/2020.

8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the legal and factual aspects, not only upheld the decreeing of the suit but also supplemented additional reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by defendant No.3.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 is before this Court, on following grounds and has raised substantial questions of law has been raised:

GROUNDS 

“The appellant submits that inconsistent cross examination of P.W.1 during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 the respondent/plaintiff admits that there is no khatha as on the date of filing the suit and also the respondent/plaintiff admits that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property even though the court below comes to the conclusion that in the sale deed mentioned as possession was delivered. And also the court below made an observation and mentioned in the para No. 14 that the argument of defendant No.3 stated that as on the date of suit there was no khata in the name of plaintiff/respondent and Ex.p1 survey Number is not mentioned, and also the admission given by the respondent/ plaintiff in his cross examination are contrary to his own case. Hence the respondent/ plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

The appellant submits that the suit is one for bare injunction, when the respondent/ plaintiff himself admits that there is no khata as on the state of filing the suit, and the respondent/plaintiff admits that the defendant No.3 is in possession. When such