Possession is critical for granting permanent injunctions even in the presence of title disputes, as affirmed by the Courts' findings regarding the plaintiff's established possession.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court whereby granting the relief of permanent injunction in O.S.No.115/2007 by its judgment dated 09.11.2017 and also the concurrent findings of the appellate Court in R.A.No.54/2017 dated 15.09.2021, confirming the judgment of trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties is that, it is contented that suit property was earlier in Survey No.38 of Gooranahalli Village. One Chikkegowda was the original owner of the said property and his sons Lakkanna and Marigowda got converted the said property measuring 30 guntas as per the orders dated 13.06.1983. Accordingly, Katha No.92 was made in Gooranahalli Grama Panchayath. Out of 30 kuntas, Lakkanna and Marigowda sold the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 02.08.1983, in favour of plaintiff’s husband D.M.Panchaksharaya. Since then, plaintiff’s husband had been in possession of the suit property. The suit property was brought within the limits of Channarayapatna Municipality and self-assessment number was also given to the suit property. After the death of the plaintiff’s husband, the plaintiff continued in the possession of the suit property. The municipal records stand in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right or possession over the suit property. But defendant Nos.1 and 2 on the strength of some documents alleged to be executed by defendant No.3 are trying to interfere with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment. Hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants appeared through their learned counsel and defendant No.3 filed written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 contended that the suit is not maintainable as there is no cause of action to file a suit and suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not properly valued the suit. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. One Mariya of Gooranahalli Village had two sons namely, Mariya and Chikka. Defendant No.3 is the son of the said Mariya. The said Chikka had two sons namely, Lakkanna and Marigowda. The said Lakkanna and Marigowda sold property measuring 34 guntas in Survey No.47/2 on 10.02.1971 to one Deviramma. The said Deviramma sold the said property, mentioning the survey number as ‘38’. The said Deviramma had not acquired any title as per the sale deed dated 10.02.1971. Therefore, Lakkanna and Marigowda had no title to sell the suit property on 02.08.1983 to the plaintiff’s husband. It is their contention that the said Deviramma and Lakkanna and Marikoda got entered into rectification deed dated 11.03.1985, rectifying the sale deed dated 10.02.1971 and thereby rectified the survey number as ‘38’ instead of Survey No.47/2 and extent of 30 guntas instead of 34 guntas. On the said date, possession of the land was handed over. Thereafter, Lakkanna and his family members sold the land measuring 17 guntas in favour of Marigowda under the registered sale deed dated 28.10.2005.

5. Later, defendant No.3 gifted 6 and ½ guntas out of 17 guntas in favour of defendant No.3 on 08.11.2006 and sold 1 ½ guntas under the registered sale deed dated 08.11.2006. Accordingly, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are having title and possess