A party claiming possession must demonstrate legal ownership or lawful occupation; the absence of valid documentation renders injunction suits against eviction invalid under the Public Premises Act.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Ramakrishna Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Plaintiff is the Appellant in the present Second Appeal challenging the judgment dated 04.03.2023 passed in O.S.No. 394/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF, in respect of item No.2 of the suit property, which reads as under:

“ITEM No.2

All that piece and parcel of the vacant land, used as play ground with stone slabbed and barbed wire fencing in Survey No.249, measuring 1.28 acres situated at Smith Road, Oorgaum Limits Oorgaum Post, KGF-563120 and the same is bounded on the East by:Jamkhana Foot Ball ground, West by: Smith Road, North by:Vacant land and on the South by: Environment Research and Human Protection Institution.”

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

A suit for injunction came to be filed in respect of item no.2 of the suit property mentioned above. It is contended that plaintiff institution is sanctioned the suit properties for providing free education to the poor and needy persons and plaintiff was put into possession of item No.1 of the suit property by the Government of Karnataka.

4. It is further contended by the plaintiff that plaintiff is running educational institution over the suit property to an extent of 36 guntas and it is assessed to revenue in khatha2159 and assessment No.202.

5. It is also contended that Government of Karnataka sanctioned the item No.1 of the suit property vide letter dated 04.11.2004 bearing No.Sum/LoEe/50/BMSS/2003 by the Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Public Works Department.

6. Thereafter, plaintiff is in uninterrupted peaceful possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties and plaintiff also developed the suit properties and put up a compound wall. It is further contended that vacant space is used by the students as play ground.

7. It is further contention of the plaintiff that a suit in O.S. No.565/2010 was filed by the defendants and said suit was being contested. The Bharath Gold Mines Limited, later on withdrew the said suit as not pressed on 27.10.2014.

8. It is further contended that defendants without there being any right, title or interest over the suit item Nos.1 and 2, started interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties which resulted in filing the suit.

9. On receipt of suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the suit by denying the plaint averments.

10. It is further contended that item No.2 is in the ownership of defendant No.1-Company. It is further contended that Employment Exchange Building measuring 38 guntas is the State Government property which is marked as N7 which resembles item No.1 of the suit property. In the said building, plaintiff is running Alagappa University and no right, title and interest is possessed in item No.2 of the suit property and sought for dismissal of the suit in respect of item No.2 of the suit property.

11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and by a considered judgment dated 04.03.2023, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 of the suit property.

12. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal in R.A.No.80/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, KGF.

13. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re- appreciation of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, by the judgment dated 13.02.2024, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 of the suit property.

14. While so dismissing the appeal, l