A plaintiff must establish current possession to succeed in an injunction claim; a registered sale deed's terms cannot be contradicted by oral evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23rd July, 2014, passed in R.A.No.21/2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Madhugiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009, passed in O.S.No.174/2001 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Madhugiri.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

Appellant is the plaintiff. Respondents are the defendants.

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under;

It is the case of the plaintiff that, the land bearing Sy.No.44 of Badakanahalli village, Madhugiri Taluk was the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. During the year 1967 there was a severe draught and the plaintiff was badly in need of money, therefore, the plaintiff barrowed hand loan of Rs.400/- from the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 insisted the plaintiff to execute the nominal sale deed towards the security of the loan. The plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. The possession was not delivered as on the date of execution of the registered sale deed. The plaintiff continued in possession of the suit schedule property even after the execution of registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. It is contended that the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendants did not heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction.

5. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died leaving behind his legal representatives and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.1 (a) to (c). Defendant No.1(a) filed additional written statement. Defendant No.1 (b) and (c) filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1 (a). In the written statement it is contended that the plaintiff had executed a registered sale deed dated 05.07.1967 in favour of defendant No.1 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. It is contended that on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 05.07.1967, the suit schedule property was transferred to the defendant No.1 under M.R.No.6/2001-02. RTC extract and khatha stands in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property. It is contended that, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the issues.

7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined the power of attorney holder as P.W.1 and examined four witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 5 and got marked 45 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.45 and defendant No.1 (a) was examined as D.W.1 and examined three witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked 38 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.38.

8. The Trial Court after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with costs vide judgment dated 15.01.2009. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.174/2001, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.21/2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Madhugiri.

9. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.07.2014 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

10. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below, has filed this regular second appeal.

11. Heard the le