JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

29.2.2008 passed in O.S.No.6294/2000 by the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-19) dismissing the suit, the plaintiff has approached this Court in appeal.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-Manjula who was the wife of the original plaintiff-N.H.Krishnappa are as below:

The plaintiff being the absolute owner in actual possession and enjoyment of the site No.61, ITI Notified Area Committee, formed in Sy.No.25P of Basavanapura Village measuring 1,200 Sq.ft. by virtue of the sale deed dated 26.07.2000 by Sri.N.Kodanda Reddy. His name was recorded in the revenue records of the ITI Notified Area Committee and he was paying the tax. It is stated that N.Kodanda Reddy had purchased 20 guntas in Sy.No.25P from one Papamma under a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1995. It was contended that Papamma and N.Kodanda Reddy had acquired title over the property through a certificate of Saguvali Chit (grant) dated 19.04.1979 issued by Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. There was a condition not to alienate the property for 15 years on the grantee- Papamma. It is contended that the defendants without any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property started disturbing and obstructing the plaintiff over the suit site while he tried to construct a structure. Police complaints were filed between the parties. Therefore, there was cause of action for the plaintiff and the suit O.S.No.6294/2000 was filed against the defendants seeking permanent injunction.

4. On issuance of summons, defendant Nos.1 and

2 appeared and filed their written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had also filed O.S.No.4987/2000 and O.S.No.4988/2000 on 20.07.2000 and those suits were also clubbed with O.S.No.6294/2000.

5. The defendants in their written statement contended that defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of site No.61, ITI Notified Area Khata No.34/4/25-P/61 and defendant No.2 is the owner in possession of site No.50 with Khata No.34/4/25-P/50. They had purchased it from Papamma and her son-Muthu under registered sale deeds dated 25.02.1994. They contended that they are paying the taxes and they had obtained permission for construction of the building and the plaintiff is in no way concerned to the suit schedule properties. Similar was their contention in their respective plaints in O.S.Nos.4987 and 4988 of 2000. They also contended that the vendor of the plaintiff-N.Kodanda Reddy was a subsequent purchaser from Papamma and therefore, he could not have claimed any right, title or interest in the suit sites, which were sold to the defendants by Papamma and Muthu. It was alleged that the suit is filed at the instigation of N.Kodanda Reddy, who had alienated a portion of the property after he came to know about the suits filed by these defendants. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of suit schedule property?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove alleged obstruction? 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for any relief?

4. What order? What decree?"

7. All the three suits were clubbed together and common evidence was led. The plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked in evidence. Defendants examined themselves as DWs.1 and 2 and Exhibits D1 to D21 were marked in evidence.

8. The trial Court after hearing both the sides, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and by the impugned common judgment, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff while decreeing the suits filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

9. The said judgment and decree is challenged by the plaintiff in this appeal.

10. On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 /defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared before this Court through thei