A suit for permanent injunction, without seeking a declaration of title, is not maintainable when ownership is disputed; a comprehensive claim is required to address possession and title.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2014 passed in R.A.No.10/2012 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna, and the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.38/2006 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The same was purchased from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 02.01.1970, and thereafter, he came in possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said property stands in the name of the plaintiff and he is paying kandayam to the said property. It is contended that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the plaint, and also contended that the defendant is the owner and in possession of old Junjer No.132 and new No.56 of Mallinathapura village, which comes within the Hunasavadi Gramapanchayath. The suit schedule property comes within the property of the defendant, and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, since from the time of his ancestors. The defendant constructed a tobacco barn in the suit schedule property and owns 2 tobacco barns measuring 16 x 16 feet in the suit schedule property. He obtained tobacco lincece in the name of his son M.D.Purushotham, bearing T.B.G.R.No.4/045/064. The plaintiff filed a suit by suppressing true facts and also by creating some documents. It is also contended that the boundaries finished to the suit schedule are created and there is no such alleged schedule property in the suit schedule. In fact, the said boundaries refer to the property of the defendant, wherein the tobacco barns are situated well within the said boundaries. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant over the suit schedule property?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the plaint?

4) What order or order?

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to P3. In rebuttal, the defendant examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.D1 to D9.

3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmativ