The plaintiff must demonstrate ownership or lawful possession to maintain a suit for permanent injunction; lack thereof results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri K.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.4636/2002 is the appellant challenging the dismissal of the said suit by the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2008 on the file of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Plaintiff filed the abovementioned suit contending that his father had purchased the agricultural land measuring 2.16 acres in land bearing Sy.No.9/1 of T.Dasarahalli Village under registered sale deed dated 08.11.1954. Its northern boundary is a Government oni. Father of the plaintiff and father of the defendants formed unauthorised residential layout in their land and sold those sites.

5. In the year 1995, T.Dasarahalli Grama Panchayath became City Municipal Council and thereafter regular roads were laid in the village. Despite laying of such roads, the government oni or the pathway continued to be in existence and it was converted into pakka road. Karnataka Electricity Board has laid electric poles in the road and telephone department also laid telephone lines.

6. It is also contended that 4 to 5 sewerage chambers are made in the said road to connect the sewerage from respective houses. It is further contented that to the north of the disputed pathway, Ward No. 11 of T.Dasarahalli is located and what was once upon a time a kacha oni is now the connecting road between the suit property and the Ward No.11.

7. Plaintiff claimed the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’), contending that defendant is not allowing the said public road to be utilized by the plaintiff and others. Therefore, sought for an order of injunction.

“All that piece and parcel of the road measuring 24 feet x 448 feet road formed and in existence within the limits of City Municipal limits of T.Dasarahalli, now coming within Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and bounded on the East by Road junction comprising of 7^th Main Road, 4^th Main Road and another unnumbered road, West by transformer of KEB and others property, North by Ward No.11 comprising of 3 cross roads and South by Ward No.12 and plaintiff’s property.”

8. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable in law or on facts as plaintiff is unable to make out a case for lawful possession over the suit property. 9. He specifically denied the plaint averments in paragraphs 2 to 4 and 7 to 10. He further contended that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiff differs from the factual aspects at the spot and it differs from the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

10. It is also contented by the defendant No.1 that the rough sketch filed along with the plaint is a self-serving document without any sanction whatsoever and it did not depict the factual aspects on the spot.

11. Defendant No.1 specifically denied the existence of the government oni (pathway). He further contended that at any rate, such a government oni did not exist in the land of first defendant.

12. It is also denied by the first defendant that plaintiff’s father has left behind land measuring 40 feet x 400 feet for the use of general public and averments made in paragraphs 6 and 9 of t