Injunction suits focus on possession rather than title; the trial court correctly emphasized possession while reserving title disputes for a comprehensive suit.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

These two captioned appeals are taken together though the decree arises out of two independent suits but common question is involved and both the sites are part and parcel of Sy.No.19/6, over which defendant Nos.1 and 2 are asserting title.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.258/2008 and 257/2008 instituted suits for injunction simpliciter in respect of Site Nos.56 and 54 respectively, carved out of Sy.No.19/6 situated at Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, measuring East–West 40 feet and North–South 30 feet. The plaintiffs assert possession on the strength of registered sale deeds executed by the GPA Holder through original owner, Chowramma. It is specifically pleaded that Sy.No.19/6 was acquired by Chowramma under registered sale deeds dated 17.12.1955 and 09.11.1972. According to the plaintiffs, Chowramma had formed residential sites in lands bearing Sy.Nos.18/10, 19/6, 18/8, 19/5, 18/9 and 19/4.

3. It is further pleaded that after conversion of the said lands, the legal heirs of Chowramma entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.08.1997 in favour of C.P. Selvaraj in respect of Sy.No.19/6 along with other lands and, on the very same day, Selvaraj reconveyed the property in favour of Smt. Papamma, Mariyappa, Smt. Theresamma and Rayappa. Upon receipt of the entire sale consideration, the said purchasers executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of C.P. Selvaraj, who, acting as GPA holder, formed a residential layout. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit schedule sites from the GPA holder under registered sale deed dated 12.09.1998. Alleging that the defendants attempted to remove the fencing by engaging labourers, the plaintiffs instituted the present suits seeking injunction.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statements, stoutly disputing not only the plaintiffs’ title but also the very formation of sites in Sy.Nos.18/10, 19/6, 18/8, 19/5, 18/9 and 19/4. The defendants contended that they had purchased Sy.No.19/6 from the original owner, J.Mariappa and others, and asserted possession over the entire extent of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.19/6, seeking dismissal of the suits.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and permitted the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the trial Court noticed that the defendants had already instituted a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.9087/2006 seeking declaration and consequential injunction and, during its pendency, had sought amendment to include the relief of possession. In this backdrop, the trial Court, relying upon the photographs, tax paid receipts and the conduct of the defendants in seeking possession, held that the plaintiffs had independently established their possession as on the date of institution of the suits. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suits, holding that the plaintiffs were in lawful possession on the relevant date.

6. While granting the relief of perpetual injunction, the trial Court expressly confined its findings to possession alone and reserved liberty to the parties to establish their respective right, title and interest in the comprehensive suit in O.S.No.9087/2006. Observing that the suits were for injunction simpliciter, the trial Court held that its enquiry was necessarily limited to lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suits and not title. Consequently, both the suits came to be decreed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants, reiterating the grounds urged in the memoran