Mere claims of possession without evidence of interference do not justify injunction; possession must be supported by proper legal documentation.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Impugning the judgment dated 30.07.2010 in R.A.No.69/2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet, whereby the decree dated 12.08.2009 in O.S.No.98/2007 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Hospet, was reversed and the suit came to be dismissed, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts that are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

(a) The suit schedule property happens to be 3.53 Acres in Survey No.95/A of Kotaginahal village of Hospet Taluk, having remaining portion of said survey number measuring 3.54 Acres on the eastern side.

(b) The plaintiffs contended that they are the absolute owners of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.95/A measuring 7.07 Acres and it originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs viz., Rachotappa and they were jointly cultivating the said land and the names of the plaintiffs were entered in the records of rights. The entire Survey No.95/A was joint family property and there was no division even after the death of Rachotappa.

(c) One Smt.Parvatamma filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the Land Tribunal to an extent of 3.54 Acres and sought to declare herself as an occupant. After enquiry, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Parvatamma in respect of 3.54 Acres of land. Thus, she was in possession and enjoyment of only 3.54 Acres.

(d) The plaintiffs further contended that the name of the defendant No.1-Basavanagouda was entered in the records of rights of the remaining extent of land in the year 2005 on the basis of mutation entry dated 03.09.2004. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the Revenue Authorities, who gave an endorsement stating that there are no such mutation records but the name of defendant No.1-Basavanagouda was entered in the records of rights pertaining to Survey No.95/A of Kotaginahal village.

(e) It is contended that defendant No.1-Basavanagouda had no manner of right, title or interest in whatsoever manner over the land measuring 3.53 Acres and he was entitled only in respect of 3.54 Acres, which was granted in the name of Smt.Parvatamma. The defendant No.1-Basavanagouda even though he has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property, is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the resistance made by the plaintiffs was not heeded to by the defendants and therefore, there was a need for the plaintiffs to file the present suit. On such grounds, the plaintiffs sought for injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

4. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants contending:

(a) A portion of the land in Survey No.95/A measuring 3.54 Acres was sold by one Singanala Thimmavva, Singanala Rachotappa, Singanala Yerribasappa and Singanal Basamma in favour of Nelludi Pompanna for a sum of Rs. 200/- on 07.06.1947 and he was put in possession. It is contended that remaining extent of 3.53 Acres in Survey No.95/A was sold for Rs. 500/- by Singanal Sanna-Mookappa and Thippamma in favour of Nelludi Pompanna on 30.12.1952 and he was put in possession.

(b) The defendants further contended that Nelludi Pompanna sold the land purcha