A plaintiff with lawful possession can seek an injunction against interference, and if ownership is disputed, they may need to prove title in a suit for declaration alongside injunction.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal by the appellant-plaintiff is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.01.2021 passed in O.S.No.26141/2017 by LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the appellant- plaintiff against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Though the matter is posted for orders, with the consent of both sides and the Trial Court Records having been received, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

(a) The appellant-plaintiff institutes the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction and other reliefs inter alia contending that he is the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule immovable property having acquired the same from respondent No.1-Society under registered sale deed dated 25.01.1996 executed in her favour by the respondent No.1-Society. It is contended that the khata has been registered/made out in the name of the appellant by the BBMP and when respondent Nos.3 to 5 in collusion with respondent Nos.1 and 2 attempted to interfere with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, appellant filed the instant suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

(b) It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that defendant No.1 is the Society which executed sale deed in favour of appellant-plaintiff, while defendant No.2 is the BDA and defendant Nos.3 to 5 are BBMP and its officials.

(c) The defendant No.1 filed the Written Statement admitting that the Society had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant in relation to the suit schedule property. It is contended that respondent No.1 decided to use the suit schedule property as a park and accordingly, requested the BDA to receive an affidavit seeking to rectify the layout plan and exclude the suit schedule property but BDA did not take any decision in this regard. Accordingly, the respondent No.1-Society sought for dismissal of the suit.

(d) The defendant No.2-BDA filed a separate Written Statement inter alia contending that as per the modified plan, the suit schedule property was a civic amenity site and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any right over the suit schedule property and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(e) The defendant Nos.3 to 5-BBMP also filed a separate Written Statement contesting the suit and putting forth the same contentions as defendant Nos.1 and 2 and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"i. Does the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?

ii. Does the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants as averred in the plaint?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?

iv. What order or decree?"

5. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P13 are marked on her behalf. The BBMP examined defendant No.4 as DW.1 and documentary evidence at Exhibits D1 to D4 were marked. However, defendant No.1-Society and defendant No.2-BDA did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

6. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit by coming to the conclusion that as per the modified layout plan marked as Ex-D2, the plaintiff does not have any right or possession over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant-plaintiff is before this