To secure a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish lawful possession at the time of filing; mere historical claims without current evidence are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This matter is listed for admission. The matter was heard earlier and time was granted and now the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and also confirming the same.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of immovable properties measuring east to west 83 feet and north to south 69 feet. The plaintiff had purchased the aforesaid properties under three registered sale deeds from owners thereof, which is dated 16.03.1984 for a valuable consideration. The khata of the said properties are all transferred into the name of the plaintiff firm by the Mysore City Corporation, Mysore. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties is an old building aged about more than 100 years. Mysore City Corporation, Mysore had issued a notice under Section 322 (1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act to the plaintiff in the year 1985, calling upon the plaintiff to demolish the schedule properties on the ground that the schedule properties are in a dilapidated condition and it is not fit for human habitation. The persons who are in occupation in the said properties have challenged the said order before the Standing Committee, MCC, Mysore and the said appeal has been dismissed confirming the action taken by the Commissioner. In the said appeal, they have urged that the schedule properties are in a good condition, but their defence has been negatived by the Standing Committee, MCC, Mysore. Against the order passed by the Standing Committee, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore, the persons who are in possession of the schedule properties had filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.12733, 12736/1999 and 31905/2000 i.e., filed by defendant No.1. In the said writ petitions, they have impleaded the Mysore City Corporation, Mysore as respondent No.1 therein and the plaintiff herein as respondent No.4 therein. After contest, the said writ petitions are all dismissed by its order dated 01.01.2002. In the said writ petitions, a Commissioner has been appointed and he has reported to the Court that the schedule properties are all in a dangerous condition and it is fit for demolition.

3. It is also the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that against the said order, the aggrieved persons, including defendant No.1 herein have preferred writ appeals and the same are also dismissed by its order dated 26.06.2002. In the said judgment, it has been clearly stated that the aggrieved persons have submitted before the High Court that they have no grievance for demolition of the said building, which is in a dangerous condition. As per the report submitted by the Commissioner, he has submitted a report that facing 4 shops in Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore is in a dilapidated condition and the remaining portion i.e., the third hind portion of the entire building is in a dilapidated condition. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants, who are in occupation of the four shops facing Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore i.e., the tenants, named, M.A. Shariff, Jethanand, K.Subramanyan and Arjun Bhatija for ejectment from the shops who are in occupation thereof in respect of some of the door numbers. After the contest, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the aforesaid premises has been allowed. The tenants who are in occupation have taken up the matter before the Apex Court and they have not succeeded in their appeal. U