The main legal point established in the judgment is that where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - These appeals have been filed by the appellants aggrieved against the judgments & decrees dated 04.02.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali and judgments & decrees dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, whereby the suits filed by the respondents for permanent and mandatory injunction have been decreed and the appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed.

2. The suits for permanent and mandatory injunction were filed by the plaintiffs on 08.05.2014, inter alia, with the submissions that the suit plots were purchased by them from father of the defendants vide registered sale-deed dated 06.12.1993 and since then, they were in peaceful possession of the plots in question, which was surrounded by fence with a gate and there were four trolley stones lying on the plots. The defendants unauthorisedly entered the plots on 04.05.2014 and started digging for foundation through JCB. It was indicated that as the defendants have started to dig foundation, the suits were being filed for permanent injunction and for restoration of the plots in its previous status mandatory injunction was prayed.

3. The suits were contested by the defendants by filing written statement denying the averments made in the suits and claiming that they were in possession of their ancestral property and that the suits for permanent and mandatory injunction were liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined and four documents were exhibited and on behalf of defendants, two witnesses were examined.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the suit property was purchased by plaintiffs by registered sale-deed from father of the defendants vide Exhibit-1 on 06.12.1993 claiming the same to be owned by him and he had delivered the possession to the plaintiffs. The sale-deed, inter alia, contained signatures of the defendant No.1 as well and, therefore, it was proved that with the execution of the sale-deed, the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs and on 04.05.2014, the defendants removed the fencing and forcibly started digging foundation.

6. The plea raised that for lack of possession, the suit for injunction was not maintainable was negated by the trial court observing that the oral evidence against the documentary evidence, cannot be accepted as the sale-deed clearly indicated handing over of the possession and that the plaintiffs have specifically indicated that they had received the possession, constructed the fence and four trolley stones were lying on the plots, which were removed by the defendants and despite detailed cross-examination, the said statement could not be shaken. Based on its finding, the trial court decreed the suits ordering for grant of injunction and removal of the foundation.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed first appeals. The first appellate court reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court, dismissed the appeals.

8. In the present second appeals, learned counsel for the appellants emphasized that it was the specific case of the plaintiffs in the suits itself that on 04.05.2017, the defendants had trespassed over the plots in question and were raising construction. As such, once the plaintiffs themselves indicated that the defendants had trespassed over the plots of land, the suits for injunction was not maintainable and the plaintiffs were required to file suits for possession, however, both the courts below have not considered the said aspect of the matter and have merely based on the stipulation indicated in the sale-deed, have decreed the suits and reiterating the findings of the trial court, which is contrary to law and as such, give rise to substantial questions of law in the present appeals.

9. Reliance was placed on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy by LRs & Ors.:, (2008) 4 SCC 594.

10. Learned couns