Heard Sri Shivananda D.S., learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and

Sri N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-

the Secretary of Revenue Department, challenging the

3

validity

of

the

judgment

and

decree

passed

in

O.S.No.5540/1996.

The parties are referred to as the plaintiffs

and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their

original ranking before the trial Court.

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.5540/1996

for the relief of permanent injunction against his vendor

Smt. Kamalakshamma and the State of Karnataka, by

its Secretary, Revenue Department.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under:

In respect of land in Sy.No.85 of Bagalagunte

Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk to

the extent of 3 acres, occupancy rights were granted by

the Special Deputy Commissioner exercising the power

vested in him under the provisions of the Inams

Abolition

Act

in

favour

of

the

first

defendant-

Smt. Kamalakshamma.

4

6.

It is further contended that she formed a

revenue layout in the said land as the land was not fit

for agricultural purposes in view of the development in

and around the area. The plaintiff has purchased the

suit site bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 40 feet x 30 feet

from the first defendant by paying sale consideration in

a sum of Rs.40,000/-by entering into an agreement to

sell at the first instance on 22.02.1995.

7.

It is also contended that by way of part

performance of the agreement, the plaintiff was put in

possession of the suit property by the first defendant

and the first defendant also executed a General Power of

Attorney in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the

plaintiff constructed a house therein. On 28.07.1996,

the second defendant attempted to demolish the

structure in the suit property. The plaintiff approached

the jurisdictional police but her complaint was not

received by the police. Again on 03.08.1996, there was

5

an attempt to demolish the house of the plaintiff

highhandedly. Apprehending the demolition, left with no

alternate, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court with a

prayer for grant of permanent injunction restraining the

defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit property.

8. After the service of notice of suit summons,

the first defendant remained exparte and defendant

Nos.2 to 5 filed a common written statement denying

the plaint averments in toto. There was a specific

contention taken by defendant Nos.2 to 5 that Sy.No.85

of Bagalakunte Village is a gomal land and the plaintiff

filed a false suit concocting the documents to knock off

the Government property and thus sought for dismissal

of the suit.

6

9. On the basis of the rival contention of the

parties, the Trial Court raised the following issues in

O.S.No.5540/1996:

1.

"Whether

the

plaintiff

proves

her

lawful

possession of the suit property on the date of the

suit?

2.

Whether the plaintiff further proves alleged

interference by the defendants?

3.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of

permanent injunction as sought for?"

10. In order to discharge the burden cast on the

plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1. The

plaintiff got examined Sri M.G.Manjunatha, the General

Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and relied on 7

documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1

to Ex.P7 comprising of sale agreement, the General

Power of Attorney, affidavit of the first defendant, Tax

paid receipt, Assessment Registrar Extract, Special

power of attorney and a certified copy of the judgment

in O.S.No.668/1992.

7

11. PW.1 was cross examined by suggesting that

the plaintiff is in illegal possession of the suit land.

However, there is no contra evidence placed on record

by the defendants to probabilise the case of the

defendants that the suit site is part of Sy.No.35 which is

gomal land.

12. On conclusion o