The court reaffirmed that established ownership through undoubted sale deeds and municipal approvals is paramount, shifting the burden of proof to the defendants when such ownership is claimed.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.UMA, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.165/2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and JMFC, Chintamani (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court', for short), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2009 passed in RA.No.93/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) and JMFC, Chintamani (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court', for short), where under the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside, consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed.

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

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.165/2003 before the Trial Court initially against defendants No.1 to 5, seeking permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and from dispossessing him from the same. Schedule A property attached to the plaint describes the site bearing No.1366/1/1274 measuring 41x11 1/2 feet with the boundaries mentioned therein. Schedule B property describes site bearing No.1402/1309 measuring 45 1/2 x 21 feet with the boundaries mentioned therein. It is stated that both schedule A and B properties are situated in Second Division, Post Office Road, Diamond Talkies road, Chintamani Town. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. He purchased schedule A property under the registered Sale Deed dated 17.05.2001 from the earlier owner Ashwathaiah and purchased schedule B property which is a vacant site, under the registered Sale Deed dated 15.07.2002 from its earlier owners K.S.Nagarjun and K.S.Nagesh. Plaintiff obtained the building license and approved plan for construction of commercial building over schedule B property and started to put up construction. The defendants being the strangers started interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against defendants No.1 to 5.

4. It is contended that defendant No.2 is the husband of the President of Town Municipal Council (TMC) and at his instance, the TMC, Chintamani started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and therefore, TMC, Chintamani is impleaded as defendant No.6.

5. Defendant No.3 appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement, denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is contended that the schedule properties are not at all in existence in Chintamani Town. It is contended that, defendant No.2 is the Public Representative and is the husband of the President of TMC. Defendant No.3 is the locallite and was ex-councilor of TMC. Defendant No.4 is the resident of Kumbarpete in property No.1404/1311, which is abutting to the southern side of the municipal property bearing No.1403/1310 and defendant No.5 is also resident of Kumbarpete. It is contended that the property of the plaintiff is situated towards north of municipal property, and the plaintiff made attempts to encroach over the same. Therefore, defendant No.3 approached defendant No.6 and submitted a representation to protect the municipal property. The TMC issued endorsements, which clearly establish that the TMC is sailing with the plaintiff and not interested in protecting the municipal properties. Therefore, it is contended that, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the schedule properties and he is not entitled for any reli