ORDER

The defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 in O.S.No.107/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Koratagere have filed this petition challenging an order dated 03.06.2015 passed therein by which, an application (I.A.No.1) filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code was allowed. They have also challenged the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri in M.A.No.34/2015 by which, the appeal was dismissed.

2. The suit in O.S.No.107/2014 was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants form interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property bearing Sy.No.37/1 of Malugonahalli, Kolala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, was the ancestral property of Siddaveeraiah, who had a son named M.S.Vijay. They executed a power of attorney dated 06.02.2013 in favour of G.M.Thimmahanumaniah authorising him to deal with the suit property, including alienating the suit property. Based on such power of attorney, G.M.Thimmahanumaiah had sold the suit property to the plaintiff in terms of a sale deed 31.12.2013, following which, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records, pursuant to acceptance of mutation in M.R. No.H3/2013-14. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were trying to interfere with his possession and therefore sought for the relief of perpetual injunction.

3. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that Gubbanna son of Siddaveeraiah of Malugonahalli had three sons namely, Siddaveeraiah, Revanna and Shivanna. They claimed that Malugonahalli was a Jodi Inam village. They claimed that Gubbanna and his three sons sold portion of their property in Sy.No.54 situated at Malugonahalli, under a sale deed dated 24.10.1962, in favour of Ugrappa, the brother of defendant No.1. Similarly in terms of a sale deed dated 25.08.1965, an extent of 9½ guntas of land in Sy.No.54 was sold to Balegowda. Likewise, on 25.08.1965 an extent of 06 guntas of land in Sy.No.54 was sold to Rangaswamaiah. Again on 25.07.1974, an extent of 15 guntas of land was sold to N.S.Nagappa. Likewise, on 05.10.1969, a portion of the land in Sy.No.56 was sold to Gangahanumaiah. They claimed that J.Rudrappa was Jodidar of lands in Malugonahhalli, while Shivannappa was a tenant in Sy.No.37 of Malugonahalli. The said Shivanappa filed a petition for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.37. The Special Deputy Commissioner for inams abolition, Bengaluru granted occupancy rights to Shivannappa in terms of the order dated 16.01.1961 in respect of 22 guntas in Sy.No.37. Later, Sy.No.37 was bifurcated into Sy.Nos.37/1 and 37/2. They claimed that the grand son of Shivanappa namely, N.S.Nagappa sold the land in Sy.No.37/1 to the defendant No.1 on 04.03.1991 and from that day the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in actual possession of suit schedule property. However, they contended that in the sale deed survey number was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.54. They contended that Siddaveeraiah who allegedly executed the power of attorney in the year 1965 was a minor. They contended that since they were not aware of the real survey numbers at the time of execution of the sale deeds, Gubbanna and his sons had sold Sy.No.54 and taking undue advantage of the revenue entry, standing in the name of Shivanna son of Gubbanna, the plaintiff in collusion with Siddaveeraiah and his son - M.S.Vinay brought about a fraudulent power of attorney in favour of G.M.Thimmahanumaiah. They therefore, contended that there was no cause of action for the suit and the one mentioned in the suit was imaginary and fraudulent.

4. An application was filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession in the suit property. The application was contested by the defendants on similar lines and they claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and that she had not made out a