Possession of property is protected under law, and eviction can only occur through due legal process; previous court findings confirmed the plaintiff's rightful possession and the inadequacy of the defendant's claims.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.302/2007 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri and the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.89/2002 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri.

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. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.

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

The land bearing Sy.No.6 of Kurihalli village totally measuring 17 acres originally belongs to the Government. The plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation and cultivation and in enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the past 25 years to an extent of 3 acres out of 17 acres. The Tahsildar has granted 3 acres of land vide order dated 19.02.1994 and the saguvali chit was issued to the plaintiff. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendant managed to get the name entered in the revenue records by colluding with the Revenue Officials to regularise the land that was granted to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff and another grantee, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 15.03.1999 and the Deputy Commissioner's order was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, wherein the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. It is observed that the land was not granted to the defendant. Hence, the question of challenging the grant order would not arise. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. Once again the defendant has filed the petition before the Assistant Commissioner, where the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the grant of the plaintiff. It is contented that the defendant taking advantage of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.

3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the description of the suit schedule property and contended that the suit property was granted in favour of the defendant and the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the alleged cause of action true?

3) What decree or order?

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, he examined himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, and marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25, In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13.

3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, and issue No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and decree for the permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except in due course of law.

3.5. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in