A suit for injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent suit for declaration of title when ownership is disputed, emphasizing the necessity of primary evidence in possession claims.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2014 passed in New R.A.No.154/2014 (Old R.A.No.2/2012) by the learned Fast Track Court, Channarayapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.2, and respondent No.2 was defendant No.1.

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

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff regarding the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule property was granted to plaintiff No.1 vide order dated 18.06.1982 by the Government. At the time of grant of the said land, the Tahasildar visited the suit property and confirmed the cultivation of the suit property by plaintiff No.1. Subsequently, the Taluka Surveyor visited the suit property, conducted a survey, and prepared the sketch indicating the possession of plaintiff No.1 over the suit schedule property. As per the grant certificate issued by the Tahasildar, plaintiff No.1 got changed the katha of the suit property into her name through M.R.No.1/1985-86. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for last more than 30 years. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. As such defendant No.1 is unnecessarily trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs' requested defendant No.1 not to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is also denied that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of defendant No.2 by the Government, and defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of the grant as an absolute owner. Defendant No.2 is a woman belongs to weaker section of the society, and defendant No.2 has taken the assistance of defendant No.1 to develop the suit schedule property. It is contended that the name of plaintiff No.1 resembles with the name of defendant No.2, taking advantage of the same, she has created the false story by concocting the documents, and has filed the suit against the defendants. All the revenue records pertaining to the suit land stands in the name of defendant No.2. It is contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or possession over the suit scheduled property. 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 she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she was the person granted the suit schedule property by the granting authority?

4) Does the 2^nd defendant prove that she was granted suit schedule property in her name by the granting committee and she is in possession of suit schedule property?

5) Whether the plaintiff entitled for the relief sought?

6) What order?

3.3. The plaintiffs,