In actions for injunctions, plaintiffs must demonstrate lawful possession and seek a declaration of title when ownership is disputed; failure to do so renders the suit unmaintainable.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

The Appellant filed this Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014 passed in RA No.49 of 2010 by the learned Fast Track Court, Mandya ('First Appellate Court' for short).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court, [OS No.227 of 2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya]. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant.

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

3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the regarding the property bearing Survey No.141 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas, situated at Shivapura Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. The plaintiff acquired the said property through her mother and she is in absolute possession and enjoyment over the said property since from the date of its acquisition. It is contented that the plaintiff availed a loan of Rs.3,58,900/- from the State Bank of Mysore, Halligere Branch by mortgaging the suit schedule property. It is contented that the defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff, and 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.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contented that the description and measurement shown in the suit schedule is incorrect, and it is denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contented that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; rather the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the revenue records stand in the name of the defendant. It is contended that, the suit property is in possession of the defendant and his ancestors for more than 100 years. It is contended that, a suit for mere injunction without seeking a relief of declaration is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss suit.

5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issue:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

(4) For what decree or order?

Addl. Issue dated 7-3-2008:

Whether the plaintiff proves that she has obtained loan of Rs.3,58,90/- from State Bank of Mysore, Hallegere Branch, Mandya by mortgaging the suit schedule property?

6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined herself as PW-1, examined 2 witnesses as PWs-2 and 3 and marked 3 documents as Exhibits P1 to P3. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and examined 4 witnesses as DWs-2 to 5 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits D1 to D16.

7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue in the affirmative and issue No.4, as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 19.04.2008, and defendants, his agents, etc., were permanently