Possession disputes must be judged based on admissions and evidence presented; unregistered sale deeds can be admissible if supported by such evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2013 passed in R.A. No.675 of 2009 by the Fast Track Court-I, Mysore.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court: the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the legal heirs of the deceased defendant.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the original defendant for permanent injunction restraining the original defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original defendant was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.3 i.e., the suit property which was his self- acquired property. The said land came under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The defendant executed an unregistered sale deed dated 12.04.1982 in favour of the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contented that the sale deed could not be registered because of the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. The plaintiff has constructed a building on the suit schedule property. The original defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff requested the defendant not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction.

6. The original defendant and defendant (b)-the legal representative of the deceased original defendant filed a written statement and an additional written statement, denying the execution of the unregistered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and it is contented that the plaintiff trespassed into the suit schedule property and constructed a building without obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff, without seeking a comprehensive relief, is not maintainable. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit.

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

1) Whether the plaintiffs proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiffs proves the obstruction caused by the defendant as alleged in the plaint?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed in the plaint?

4) What order or decree?

Additional Issues:

1) Whether the LRs (a,b,c,d) of the deceased defendant proves that deceased defendant has not executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and whether the properties in question is the ancestral property?

2) Whether the LRs (a,b,c,d) of the deceased defendant proves that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the deceased defendant is not binding on these LRs of the deceased defendant?

8. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3; and marked seven documents as Exhibits P1 to P7.

9. In rebuttal, the defendants examined defendant (c), the son of the deceased original defendant as DW-1 and marked four documents as Exhibits D-1 to D-4. The Court commissioner was examined as CW-1, and he got marked nine documents as Exhibits C1 to C9.

10. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

11. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative; additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, and issue No.4 as per the final order, and co