Possession backed by municipal sanction and compliance establishes ownership rights, qualifying for protection against interference.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

This appeal is by the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.14/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge, Deodurga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction of the house being carried on by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, which is confirmed by the judgment and order passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Deodurga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’ for short) in R.A.No.4/2017 dated 30.11.2018.

2. The property subject matter of the suit is house property bearing No.2-2-40/1A measuring 15ft x 20ft situated at Tilak Mohalla, which comes under Deodurga Muncipality limits, Taluka Deodurga, Dist.Raichur, bounded on:

East : Open space and way

West : House of Mohammad Hasanuddin

North : House of Hanumantharaya

South : Lane and Doddi of Venkoba Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit schedule property’ for short)

3. Plaintiff claims his ownership and possession over the suit property on the basis of a sanction made by the Municipality, Deodurga on 14.08.2012, in furtherance to Vajapayee Nagar Vasati Yojane as per Government Order No.NE/90/HAH/2012 dated 05.07.2012. The plaintiff claims to have obtained construction permission from the concerned authority on 31.01.2013 and started to put up construction of a house over the suit property and had completed constructed up to the slab level. That during the 2^nd week of December 2013, when the labourers of the plaintiff’s were putting up construction, suddenly defendants entered illegally over the suit property and caused obstruction in the construction work, which was however prevented by the plaintiff and his labourers. On 17.12.2023 plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Deodurga and Chief Officer of Municipality bringing to their notice about the illegal obstructions caused by the defendants and sought their intervention to settle the matter. In response thereof, the Chief Officer of the Municipality had issued a notice dated 07.01.2014 calling upon defendants to furnish necessary documents within three days from the date of notice. However, the defendants neither furnished any documents nor issued any reply to the notice of the Municipality, Deodurga. In furtherance to the oral instruction given by the Municipal Authorities, plaintiff continued the construction of her house over the suit property. However, again on 27.01.2024, the defendants illegally entered over the suit property and caused obstructions. Thus, the plaintiff not being able to resist the illegal acts of the defendants, filed the above suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from obstructing plaintiff from putting up construction over the suit schedule property.

4. The written statement was filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 denying the plaint averments and also denying the claim of the plaintiff being owner of the suit property. It is alleged that the plaintiff had manipulated, forged and fabricated the records and documents in the Municipality in her name to take away the properties of defendants No.1 and 2. That by showing wrong boundaries, plaintiff was attempting to put up construction of her house on the property of the defendants No.1 and 2, which is numbered as No.2-2- 38/2-2-42 measuring 50’x80’ situated at Tilak Mohalla Deodurga. Hence, sought for dismissal of suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in la