The validity of property grants cannot be dismissed solely based on the date of issuance, emphasizing the presumption of truth in revenue records until proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.UMA, J.

1. The plaintiff in OS.No.425/1995 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosakote (hereinafter referred as to 'Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2009 passed in RA.No.5/2004 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District (hereinafter referred as to 'First Appellate Court') allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dated 02.12.2003, consequently, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

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

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.425/1995 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the father and son, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing old Sy.No.11 and new Sy.No.96 measuring 6 acres situated at Vanamanahalli Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, with the boundaries mentioned therein, which is referred to as the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, as the same was granted in his favour by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore, as per Ex.P1. Thus, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without interference. On the basis of grant, khata was transferred in the name of plaintiff and the RTC is standing in his name. The plaintiff was paying tax, which evidences his lawful possession. The Deputy Tahsildar, Nadakacheri has issued the land cultivation declaration certificate in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

3.1. It is contended that the defendants are the residents of the same village and they are not having any manner of right, title and interest over the schedule property. They started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The cause of action arose on 15.10.1995 when the defendants tried to destroy the crops standing in the schedule land. However, the plaintiff prevented the defendants with the help of neighbors. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Trial Court for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

3.2 The defendants have appeared before the Trial Court represented by their advocates and filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff and contended that the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. It is contended that the date of grant referred to by the plaintiff is on 17.10.1976, which falls on Sunday and a Government holiday. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.P1 - the grant order is concocted documents. It is also contended that defendants were in possession of larger extent of Sy.No.11 of Vanamanahalli Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk as Jodi Inams Land. It is contended though the defendants were in cultivation of larger extent of Sy.No.11 since time immemorial, and they were in cultivation as on 1958, the date on which the Inams Abolition Act came into force. In view of the ord