A vendor cannot sell land they do not own; a suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaratory relief establishing ownership.

JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 4 under Section 100 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, at Chamarajanagara (herein after referred as first appellate court) in R.A.No.70/2013 for having dismissed the appeal and also to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.167/2007 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar dated 27.09.2013.

2. The appellants are defendants Nos.1 to 4 and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial court . The ranks of the parties before the trial court is retained for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of permanent injunction restraining, the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the landed property bearing Sy.No.289/4P2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas out of 4 acre situated at Basavapura village herein referred to as suit schedule property. The same was purchased from one Sakamma under registered sale deed dated 13.6.2007 and from the date of purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and cultivating the said property, but the defendants have no right, title or interest over the schedule property and are trying to interfere with the same on 1.9.2007 by obstructing the plaintiff from doing agriculture operation. A panchayath was also convened but the defendants did not care the advise. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction.

5. The defendants appeared through their counsel, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the written statement and the defendant Nos.3 and 4 have adopted the same, it is contended that the plaintiff is not the owner and is not in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.289/4P2 was granted in favour of Biligirinayaka and he has sold 1 acre of land, out of 4 acres to Channabasavadevaru under registered sale deed dated 26.3.1967 on the south eastern corner at the time of execution of sale deed, there was channel running from south through north in middle of the said land. After execution of sale deed the Biligirinayaka retained only 3 acres of land. Subsequently, the said Biligirinayaka gifted 2 acre 30 guntas of land in favour of his 2 daughters namely Mahadevamma and Sakamma vide registered gift deed dated 28.8.1969 and retained only 10 guntas of land with him on the northern side for 1 acre of land which was sold by him. Thereafter, Biligirinayaka sold 10 guntas of land to Channabasvadevaru by another sale deed dated 18.11.1969 thereby the Channabasvadevaru became the owner of the land to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas on the south eastern corner. The Mahadevamma and Sakamma had ownership of the said land to the extent of 2 acre and 30 guntas. Out of 2 acre 30 guntas of land, Mahdadevamma sold 1 acre to Puttaranganayaka under a sale deed and it is mentioned in the said sale deed that 1 acre 10 guntas sold in favour fo Channabasvadevaru. Out of 1 acre 30 guntas, Sakamma sold 1 acre 10 guntas to one Shivanna through sale deed dated 29.4.2002, but the boundaries given in the sale deed are not correct after execution of the sale deed dated 29.4.2002, only to an extent of 20 guntas remained with sakamma. Hence, sakamma had right to sell only to the extent of 20 guntas of land, but the said Sakamma is alleged to have sold 1 acres 30 guntas of land in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 13.6.2007. The property sold by Sakamma was not identified. The said Sakamma have no right, title or interest over 1 acre 10 guntas of land, which was already s