JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated.18.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.12/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short), which is confirmed in judgment and order dated 20.11.2023 passed in R.A No.21/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, N.R.Pura (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short).

2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction contending that he is in possession of the property in Sy.No.74 of Muttinakoppa village, Narasimharajapura Taluk, measuring 30 ft. X 40 ft. and paying taxes for the same and katha in respect of the suit property has mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records of village Panchayath of Muttinakoppa which had also issued license for construction of a building in the suit schedule property. That defendants are the brothers of the plaintiff and without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property are trying to disturb the construction work and thereby interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, suit for injunction.

3. Defendants on service of notice filed their written statement contending that the plaintiff shifted himself to Lakkavalli village about 40 years ago and has no house in Muttinakoppa village. That property to an extent of 0.02 guntas in Sy.No.74 was granted to one Syed Muneer who is the uncle of defendant No.2 and has constructed house in the property and defendant No.2 is residing in the said house. It is further contended that survey sketch pertaining to Sy.No.74 was made in the name of one Noorzabeen who is the wife of one Ashmattali and the said Ashmatalli is the brother of the defendant No.2. It is further contended that layout plan was made in respect of Sy.No.74 and site No.10 is the vacant site which is granted in the name of said Noorzabeen who is presently residing at Shivamogga. It is further contended that possession of the site No.10 is also given to the defendant No.2 and there is no such house existing on the said land as pleaded by the plaintiff. It is further contended that Gram Panchayath had cancelled the license that had been issued in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration;

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession enjoyment of suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

4. What order or decree?"

5. GPA holder, who is the son of the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 15 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Defendant examined himself as DW.1 and exhibited 19 documents marked as Ex.D1 to D19. On appreciation of evidence the Trial Court decreed the suit restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred regular appeal in R.A. No.21/2023.

6. Considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal First Appellate Court framed following points for its consideration;

"1. Whether trial Court is justified in holding that plaintiff proved his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property and alleged interference by the defendants?

2. Whether trial Court is right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for perpetual injunction?

3. Whether interference of this Court is necessary?

4. What order?"

and on re-appreciation of evidence First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this Court.

7. Sri.Pradeep Naik K, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the gro