A plaintiff must demonstrate lawful possession and accurate property boundaries to succeed in a suit for permanent injunction, particularly when challenged by a defendant claiming prior possession.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri B.V.Gangireddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.Bhadrinath, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2011 dismissing the suit in O.S No.25669/2008 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.

3. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Plaintiff filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the following property hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

“All that piece and parcel of the New No.70 and 71, Old No.65 and 66, S.Nos.12, 13 and 14 situated at Kayangutta, Kadugondanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru (presently known as Gandhinagar, 7^th Cross) with structures thereon measuring East to West 40 (forty feet), North to South 60 feet (sixty feet) in all measuring 2400 square feet and bounded on the:

East by : Site No.18 and 19

West by: 25 feet main road

North by: Plot No.69

South by: Site No.72.

5. The plaint averments further reveal that D.Bhaskaran was the owner in possession of the land in Sy.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of Kayangutta, Kadugondanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru. He formed a private residential layout as per Ex.P-6/ layout plan and divided those properties into different house sites and sold individual revenue sites to the general public.

6. Plaintiff is one among them having purchased the suit site from Sri D.Bhaskaran under the registered sale deed. Thereafter, Plaintiff maintains that he was in possession of the suit property.

7. It is further contented that the defendants created false documents in their names and in the first week of April 2008 defendants have put up structures in the suit property without any right, title or interest. Therefore there is a cause of action to file the suit.

8. Pursuant to the suit summons, it is the defendant No.4 who appeared and filed written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to file any written statement. Defendant No.3 was reported to be dead and case against defendant No.3 came to be dismissed.

9. Defendant No.4 denied the plaint averments in toto. He denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. On the contrary, contented that from the year 1963 till the date of filing the written statement fourth defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without there being any disturbance from anybody and plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property at any given point of time, and thus, sought for dismissal of the suit.

10. Learned Trial Judge based on the rival contentions, raised following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff prove his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants?

(iii) Whether suit for bare injunction without seeking declaration is not maintainable, as contended by the defendants?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

(v) What decree or order?”

11. Thereafter, in order to discharge the burden cast on the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and placed on record as many as 15 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P.15 comprising of certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.07.1968 in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff, three RTC e