Possession of property is protected by law, and a party must be evicted through due process, as established in permanent injunction suits.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2014 passed in R.A.No.82/2013 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar.

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

3. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction. It is the case of plaintiff that plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property measuring East to West- 66 ft; North to South-42 ft and adjoining bit of site measuring East to West - 8 ft and North to South-80 feet, situated at ward No.7, Gulpet, Kolar. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for consideration of Rs. 1,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for the said consideration. It is contended that the plaintiff owns property the bearing assessment No.667, measuring 80X60 feet towards the eastern side of the suit schedule property, which he had purchased from the defendant through a sale certificate dated 31.07.1963 in which he is running a workshop. To expand the same, the plaintiff purchased the suit property. The defendant in their Council meeting dated 30.11.1966, passed a resolution to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000/- and recommended to the Government and the permission was granted by the Government. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1,000/- and the possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The defendant tried to illegally dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff has furnished wrong boundaries and extent, of the plaint schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. It is contended that earlier there was a stone roofed house and subsequently the said property is used by public at large. The roof of the said building was in dilapidated condition, as such the stone roofed house was removed and now pakka building is being constructed by the municipality, to meet the needs of public at large of Kolar city. The plaintiff is an utter stranger to the suit property, and never in possession of the same. There is no cause of action to file the suit, hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule property has been reserved for the purpose of tethering cattle as contended in para 10 of the written statement?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

5. What order or decree?

7. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined his power of attorney holder as PW.1 and marked documents as Ex-P1 to P19. In rebuttal, the officer of the defendant examined as DW.1 and marked 13 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D13. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the nega