Civil Courts have jurisdiction to grant injunctions to protect possession, even when ownership claims are disputed, emphasizing the necessity of protecting peaceful possession under law.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH RAI K., J.

1. The plaintiff’s legal heirs have filed this regular second appeal.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of land measuring to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.12 of Kotaganahalli Village, Sarajapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk (for brevity "Suit Schedule Property").

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the entire village of Kotaganahalli is a Jodi Village. In view of the Personal and Miscellaneous Inam Abolition Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), the larger extent of the suit schedule property vested with the State Government.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff one late L. Chinna Reddy was in physical and continuous possession of the suit schedule property i.e., prior to the vesting of the same with the Government.

5. After the Act came into force, the late L. Chinna Reddy made an application under Section 10 of the Act. The said application came to be rejected on 30.09.1964 in case No.77/1959-60. Subsequently, the suit schedule property vested with the Government. On the basis of the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the name of the late L. Chinna Reddy has been continued in the revenue documents i.e., the RTC and pahani in column No.12(2) till his death. After his demise, the plaintiff being his only son continued the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

6. Later, the revenue authorities have lawfully collected the tax from the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has perfected his right, title by way of adverse possession. Since the possession of the plaintiff is not only within the knowledge of the defendants but also within the knowledge of the entire village of Kotagenahalli.

7. Things stood thus, defendant No.3-the Tahsildar issued a notice to the plaintiff to appear before him and place the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed his documents along with his statement before the Tahsildar and after receiving the same, the Tahsildar unattained the same.

8. Later on 12.01.2003, the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also made forcible attempt to take the possession. However, the plaintiff managed to resist the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.

9. On service of the notice to the defendants, the learned Additional Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the defendants, but did not choose to file his written statement. On 08.07.2008, the learned Additional Government Pleader has filed I.A.No.5 under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the written statement of the defendants and the said application was allowed and the defendants are permitted to file their written statement. However, the said I.A.No.5 was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, since the defendants have failed to pay the cost, the Trial Court struck off their defence.

10. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25. The defendants have neither examined any witness nor produced any documents.

11. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed th