IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Injunction—Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of property and his possession is threatened, suit for injunction simpliciter would lie—Prayer for declaration would be necessary only if there is a cloud cast on title of plaintiff.
(2) Substitution—Right to enjoy property is a transferable right and is not limited to any one person—On the death of a person, right to enjoy possession of that property can and does survive to his legal representative.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal arises out of a suit for injunction which had been instituted by the appellants against Bylappa. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have refused to grant the said decree of injunction and hence the plaintiffs have presented this second appeal.

2. During the hearing of this appeal, the 2nd plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit in so far as he was concerned and as desired by him, the suit of the 2nd plaintiff was dismissed.

3. For the purposes of clarity, in this judgment, the parties are referred to by their names instead of their rankings.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs i.e., Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah that the suit property (an agricultural land measuring 3 acres 25 guntas bearing Sy.No.108 situate at Mathadahalli village, Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk) belonged to one Arasaiah who had gifted it to his sister Kalamma i.e., the mother of the 1st plaintiff, under a registered gift deed dated 15.09.1921. It was their case that during the lifetime of Kalamma, she had enjoyed possession of the suit property along with her husband Muddaiah and after the death of Kalamma, the revenue entries were changed in favour of the 1st plaintiff, Channaiah @ Doddachannaiah in 1935.

5. It was stated that Kalamma had two sons, Channaiah @ Doddachannaiah (1st plaintiff) and Chikkachannaiah (father of the 2nd plaintiff). It was stated that on the death of Chikkachannaiah, the 2nd plaintiff had succeeded to his share and hence, he was also a co-owner of the suit property. It was contended that the record of rights and the Pahani right from the year 1968 up to 1989 stood in the name of the Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah, thus, establishing that they were in lawful possession. It was stated that they had paid the land revenue to the Government and the said documents proved that they were in lawful possession. It was stated that Bylappa was trying to interfere with their peaceful possession over the land bearing Sy.No.108 measuring 3 acres 25 guntas and hence, they were constrained to institute the suit.

6. Bylappa, the sole original defendant, entered appearance and denied the averments of the plaint. He did not however dispute the relationship of the Chennaiah @ Doddachennaiah and Ningaiah. He, however, set forth the specific plea that one Hanumantaiah had in all three children, i.e., two sons, Arasappa and Obalaiah and one daughter Kalamma. He stated that he was the son of Arasappa and his father’s brother i.e., the second son of Hanumanthaiah, viz., Obalaiah, had no issues and Arasappa was given to bad habits and he had driven away his wife, his son (Bylappa) and his brother Obalaiah from the house and had knocked away all the properties. It was stated that Arasappa started living with his sister Kalamma and also along with his concubine Nagamma.

7. It was categorically stated that Obalaiah had purchased the suit property from one Revanna under a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1912 and on the death of Obalaiah, his brother Arasappa had gifted the property to his sister Kalamma.

8. It was also stated that plaintiff No.1 had mortgaged the property in favour of Bylappa on 29.09.1936 under a registered mortgage deed and Bylappa was paying the taxes regularly every year and had documents to establish that the property was in his possession.

9. It was stated that the father of plaintiff No.2, Chikkachannaiah had instituted proceedings under the Debt Relief Act and in those proceedings plaintiff No.1 had filed an affidavit before the Taluka Magistrate stating that Bylappa was the owner in possession of the suit property and that he had no subsisting interest in it and it was also stated therein that at the instigation of some persons, Chikkachannaiah, the father of plaintiff No.2, had initiated the proceedings under the Debt Relief Act. It was finally contended that there was no cause of action for the suit and the suit was liable to dismissed.

10. The Trial Court on conside