The court affirmed that a plaintiff with established possession is entitled to a permanent injunction against interference, supported by valid ownership documentation.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.392/2013 that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Katha No.71 measuring East to West 45 feet, North to South 30 feet is the vacant site wherein Mangalore tiled house situated in the extent of 12½ x 20 feet. The boundary is also disclosed in respect of the same and the same was purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 06.10.1994 for sale consideration of Rs.8,000/- from one Hanumanthaiah, the said vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed dated 29.05.1987 from one Ramesh. Having purchased the property, all the revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant without title, right or interest over the suit schedule property, causing obstructions to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and hence, filed the suit. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.3 appeared and filed the written statement wherein stated that she doesn't know that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed in the year 1994 and also with regard to the earlier sale deed and also denies that plaintiff is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule property and also the interference by the defendants. However, defendant No.3 further contended that this defendant No.3 had filed the suit against the present plaintiff and other members in O.S.No.86/2012 and interim order was granted and defendants shall not obstruct the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. But, the plaintiff has disguised the said fact and boundary of the suit schedule property is false and with an intention to grab the property of the defendant, the plaintiff has filed suit and measurement shown in the plaint is created and imaginary. This defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.86/2012 to an extent of 30 x 78 feet along with residential house. The defendant also purchased the property through a registered sale deed on 29.05.1985, since from the date of purchase, defendant No.3 is in possession of the property along with family members and constructed the building measuring East to West 26 feet, North to South 28 feet and remaining place is vacant. Now, the plaintiff has filed the false case against the plaintiff and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the same.

3. Having considered the pleadings of both the parties, Trial Court framed the issues and also allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion with regard to the claim of the plaintiff and defendants and also taken note of registered sale deed of the year of 1987 and boundary mentioned in the earlier sale deed also extracted in paragraph No.16, so also taken note of document Ex.P.2 and Ex.P3 i.e., subsequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and so also the measurement mentioned as 45 x 30 feet in respect of Katha No.71 and so also Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 property register extracts, Katha document and affidavit issued by Pattana Panchayath. Having taken note of all these documents, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property to an extent of 45 x 30 feet in respect of Katha No.71 and also taken note of document stands in the name of the plaintiff and also to the extent of only 45 x 30 feet, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 also certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.