A plaintiff can obtain a permanent injunction against defendants interfering with her possession if exclusive ownership is established through revenue records, even amidst claims of co-ownership.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Uma, J.

The defendants in OS.No.83/2006 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), KGF (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2009 passed in RA.No.82/2007 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), KGF (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 20.07.2007 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff -Smt. Adamma, filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 9 seeking permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the schedule. The schedule attached to the plaint describes four items of properties i.e.,:

i. Survey No.61/2 (old survey No.23) measuring 3 acres out of 4 acres situated at D.K. Halli Plantation, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk with katha No.89 with the boundaries mentioned therein.

ii. Survey No.20 measuring 2.20 acres out of 13 acres situated at the same D.K. Halli Plantation with the boundaries mentioned therein, containing various trees.

iii. Survey No.22 measuring 4 acres at D.K Halli Plaintiation, with the boundaries mentioned therein, containing various mango, coconut and tamarind trees.

iv. The tractor bearing registration No. KA-08-T79 with shed and the house measuring 22 X 22 feet with a well and a vacant site having V.P. Khata No.19/2 situated at D.K. Halli Plantation, measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South 50 feet with the boundaries mentioned therein.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that she is the daughter of one Ammaniamma. During the lifetime of Ammaniamma, she had given some amount to the plaintiff. During her marriage, she had purchased the properties out of the amount paid by her mother. Item No.1 measuring 3 acres of land was purchased under the registered sale deed dated 13.02.1980 from one C.N. Rajagopal Gowda, and since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revenue record stands in her name. The plaintiff had availed loan by mortgaging the said property in favour of Canara Bank.

5. The plaintiff contended that, she purchased Item No.2 under three different sale deeds i.e. 20 guntas of land under the sale deed dated 12.10.1972 from Bychappa, one acre of land under the sale deed dated 07.06.1978 from Narayanappa, and the another one acre of land under the registered sale deed dated 17.12.1992 from one Pillappa. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties, and the Katha stands in her name. The plaintiff has also purchased 2.20 acres of land in item No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 23.10.1968 from Venkata Bovi. She purchased 1.20 acres of land from D.V. Ramamurthy Gupta under the sale deed dated 17.04.1974. Thus, she became the owner in possession of 4 acres of land, and the katha stands in her name.

6. It is contented that, Doddur Karpanana Halli Gram Panchayath has granted the parcel of land in No.4, and the possession certificate was issued in a favour of the plaintiff, and the katha stands in her name. The plaintiff being the owner was paying land revenue and the assessment tax in respect of the schedule properties regularly. She has ra