The law establishes that possession of property is sufficient for injunction relief, even in absence of title documents if ownership is admitted.

JUDGMENT :

C. M. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appear for respondents.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 06.03.2012 in R.A.No.61/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi whereby the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal reversing the judgment dated 14.07.2010 in O.S.No.53/2005 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, and JMFC, Chikodi. The Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from encroaching upon the suit land and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The First Appellate Court by impugned judgment has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Thus, the plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal.

3. The factual matrix of the case that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as below:

a) The property measuring 18 guntas out of R.S.No.872/3A/2, situated at Kabbur village, Chikodi Taluka is the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that he was owner in possession of the lands bearing R.S.No.872/3A/1 and 872/3A/2, measuring 3 acres 11 guntas and 2 acres 11 guntas, respectively. Thereafter, on 26.08.2004, the plaintiff sold northern 2 acres 19 guntas of land in R.S.No.872/3A/1 (marked as ‘GHIJ’ in the hand sketch) to one Ashok and Shreeshail under registered sale deed. On the same day, plaintiff also sold the remaining southern 32 guntas of land in the said survey number (marked as ‘EFGH’ in the sketch) and 1 acre 33 guntas of land in R.S.No.872/3A/2 (marked as ‘CDEF’ in the sketch) to the defendant No.3 and 4 under registered sale deed. Thus, he retained the suit schedule property measuring 18 guntas in R.S.No.872/3A/2, which is marked as ‘ABCD’ in the sketch.

b) It was contended that there was a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.115/2003 in respect of a well and therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are not in talking terms. Since the plaintiff was residing at Sangli for his business, the defendants were unnecessarily picking up quarrel and trying to encroach upon the suit land measuring 18 guntas. On 15.02.2005, the defendants were encroaching upon the suit schedule properties and therefore, there was a cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit.

c) On service of summons, the defendants appeared before the Trial Court. The defendant No.2 filed his written statement and the same was adopted by defendant No.1. The defendant No.3 and 4 filed their separate written statement.

d) Defendant No.1 and 2 denied the plaint allegations and disputed the description of the property. They contended that R.S.No.872/3A/1 measures 3 acres 11 guntas and R.S.No.87/3A/2 measures 2 acres 11 guntas, but there are no corresponding entries in the survey records. They alleged that the plaintiff was a litigant person and in spite of registered sale deed, he obstructed defendant No. 1 and 2 from taking water from the well and as such, O.S.No.115/2003 was filed by them and the same is pending. They denied that there was any effort for encroachment into the property of the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff is making excess alienations than the property held by him to grab the land of the defendants and as such, the suit is malafide and liable to be dismissed.

e) They contended that they are the owners in possession of 30 guntas of land in R.S.No.872/3B and it was purchased by them in the year 1941. Therefore, they denied the contentions of the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit. The defendant No.