A suit for bare injunction is maintainable where the plaintiff establishes possession, even without a declaration of title, especially when title disputes are present.

JUDGMENT :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2019 in O.S. No.2378/2013 on the file of XXXIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. In terms of the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff's suit for bare injunction is decreed. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has established his possession over the property.

3. The defendants aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree are before this Court.

4. The suit property is described as under:-

"All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.42, present Khata No.35/2/42 formed in the land bearing Survey No.35/2, situated at Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli, Bangalore north taluk,

5. The suit property was originally part of survey No.35/2 and it was converted for non-agricultural residential use vide conversion order dated 24.03.2003. Plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from defendant No.1. who is said to be daughter of late Ramappa Kumar.

6. The plaintiff claims that Ramappa Kumar was the original owner of the property and after his demise his daughter acquired right over the property. The plaintiff claims title and possession based on the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2008. Same is marked at Exhibit-P1. The plaintiff has produced the Khata register, affidavit and encumbrance certificate to assert his possession over the property.

7. The plaintiff alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 do not have any right over the property and defendant No.2 is claiming title and possession based on the registered sale deed said to have been executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar, the father of defendant No.1.

8. Defendant No.2 to substantiate her claim for possession and title over the property has produced Exhibit-D3, the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2002 executed by the power of attorney holder of Ramappa Kumar and in addition has also produced the Exhibit-D23, the general power of attorney dated 05.07.1993.

9. The Trial Court has considered the contentions based on the evidence placed before the Court. The Trial Court has noticed that the boundaries shown in the general power of attorney marked at Exhibit-D23 do not tally with the boundaries shown in the sale deed and the boundaries shown in the plaint.

10. The Trial Court has also noticed that the property was not converted for non-agricultural use in the year 2002 when defendant No.2 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No.1 based on the power of attorney of 1993. It is noticed that the conversion for non-agricultural residential use happened in the year 2003. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has disbelieved the defendants' contention that defendant No.2 is in possession of the property.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for declaration of title and bare injunction, suit is not permissible given the fact that there is a cloud over the plaintiff's title and property moreso in a situation where there are two registered sale deeds, one in favour of the plaintiff and one in favour of defendant No.2. 12. It is his further submission that the layout plan is not produced by the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction.

13. It is also urged that defendant No.1 is not the daughter of the late Ramappa Kumar.

14.