Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2013 passed in R.A.No.6/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sakaleshpura.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from trespassing on the eastern side of the suit schedule property and damaging the wall fixed compound wall on the eastern side. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff-Sangha is a trust registered on 01.04.1995. The suit property totally measures 50x350 feet. The suit property measuring 25 x 350 feet was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 09.03.1971. Based on the registered sale deed, the khatha was transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff constructed the compound and there is a public drainage constructed by the town municipality. The plaintiff also fixed a door for the purpose of cleaning and painting the temple in the eastern side of the compound. The defendant is trying to damage the door fixed to the compound on the eastern side. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff constructed the compound wall by encroaching on the property of the defendant on the eastern side. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendant closed the said door when the plaintiff kept the door on the eastern side and started using it. The defendant also complained to the Town Municipality-Sakaleshapura. The Town Municipality has not taken any action and the defendant has caused a notice to the plaintiff. There is no cause of action to file a suit. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for?

4) What order or decree?

6. To establish the case of the plaintiff, the secretary of the Sangha was examined as P.W.1 and marked 8 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 8.

7. In rebuttal, the GPA holder of the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as per Exs.D.1 to 4.

8. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence and hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 18.01.2013 and granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the suit schedule property and damaging the door fixed to the compound on the eastern side of the suit schedule property.

9. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.95/2009, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.6/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shakleshpura. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

1) Whether the trial Court judgment is not based on ev