This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the

learned counsel for the appellants.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 11.09.2017, passed in R.A.No.86/2012, on

the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Sagar.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff

before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent

injunction is that in Sy.No.79, 2 acres of land belongs to

the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the children of

Bangarashetty

and

defendant

No.4

is

the

wife

of

Bangarashetty. There was an oral partition in the year

1950 and after the partition, the husband of the plaintiff

was cultivating the property. On 01.03.1957, the plaintiff

had purchased the plaint schedule property and the same is

Streedhan and the plaintiff is in possession of the property

- 4 -

as owner. The defendants are not having any right in

respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants

colluded with each other with an intention to knock off the

suit schedule property and that on 25.01.2004, they

interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and hence suit

is filed for the relief of bare injunction.

In

pursuance

of

the

suit

summons,

the

defendants appeared and filed the written statement

contending that the husband of the plaintiff and the

husband of defendant No.4 are the direct brothers and in

the year 1950, there was a partition between the husband

of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 and their brothers and

the suit survey number measuring 04-04-00 acres of land

was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1957 and the

same is her self-acquired property. The defendants denied

the rest of the averments made in the plaint. It is the

contention of the defendants that since the date of

purchase of the said property by the plaintiff in the year

1957, the husband of defendant No.4 and the father of

defendant Nos.1 to 3 was given 02-00-00 acres of land i.e.,

- 5 -

plaint schedule property out of the said 04-04-00 acres of

land in the suit survey number purchased by the plaintiff

under the said registered sale deed as tenant and the

remaining extent of 2 acres 4 guntas were given to the

seller of the said property as tenant. Since then they have

been cultivating their respective portions in the suit survey

number as tenants. Since Ganapathi Shetty filed an

application for the grant of his tenanted land in the suit

survey number, on 01.03.1974 the said property was

granted to him, the husband of defendant No.4 had been

cultivating the plaint schedule property as tenant. Since

the husband of defendant No.4 was not so intelligent, he

could not file his application to the Land Tribunal for the

grant of said property in his favour. That on 05.03.1988,

the husband of defendant No.4 died and the defendants

have continued their possession over the plaint schedule

property as tenants. Thereafter, the defendants filed Form

No.7(A) for grant of plaint schedule property in their

favour. In the month of January 2004, the plaintiff tried to

- 6 -

take forcible possession of the suit schedule property from

the defendants.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial

Court framed the issues and the plaintiff examined one

witness as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1

to 7. On the other hand, the defendants examined one

witness as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at

Exs.D.1 to 8. The Trial Court after considering both oral

and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the

conclusion that the documents Exs.D.1 to 8 discloses that

the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule

property and the plaintiff has not placed any material

before the Court that as on the date of filing of the suit, the

plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and

dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of

the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.86/2012. The

First Appellate Court on considering the grounds urged in

the appeal memo, formula