The captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the dismissal of the suit filed

in O.S.No.6918/2003.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The subject matter of the suit is site bearing No.10

situated

in

Sy.Nos.5/10A,

5/10B

and

5/10C

of

Roopenagarahara, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South. The plaintiff

No.1 claims that he is the absolute owner of site bearing

No.10. It is specifically pleaded by plaintiff No.1 that he has

purchased the said site under registered sale deed dated

03.04.1987. It is specifically pleaded at paragraph 3 of the

plaint that the property was originally owned by one

Y.Rangaswamy S/o Yellappa. The plaintiff No.1 further

pleaded that the erstwhile owner agreed to sell the suit

4

schedule property to one Munavar Khan. Accordingly,

Rangaswamy executed General Power of Attorney holder on

07.05.1987 thereby authorizing to sell the suit schedule

property. The plaintiff No.1 has further specifically contended

that Munavar Khan has sworn to an affidavit to the said fact.

The plaintiff No.1 further contended that pursuant to

acquisition of right and title based on registered sale deed

dated 03.04.1987, entries and mutations were also effected

and encumbrance certificate was issued by the office of the

Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru South wherein plaintiff No.1 name

was duly indicated in the encumbrance certificate.

4.

Plaintiff No.1 further contended that on account of

domestic compulsion, he was compelled to approach the

plaintiff No.2 and offered to sell the suit schedule property and

the said offer was rightly accepted by the plaintiff No.2 who

has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for a sale

consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and plaintiff No.1 accordingly

executed an agreement to sell and possession was delivered

5

pursuant to agreement. Plaintiff No.1 has further contended

that he has received entire sale consideration and in terms of

agreement to sell, plaintiff No.2 was put in possession of the

suit schedule property. Plaintiff No.1 also contends that he

has executed registered General Power of Attorney dated

31.12.2001 in favour of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs' claim

that they are in possession and enjoyment over the suit

schedule property and it was only in the month of April 2003,

the defendant No.1 who is the grandson of original owner

namely

Rangaswamy

tried

to

interfere

with

peaceful

possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It

is also stated that defendant No.1 along with other residents

tried to encroach over the suit schedule property in the last

week of September 2003 and therefore, the plaintiffs were

compelled to file the present suit for bare injunction.

5.

On receipt of summons, the defendants entered

appearance and contested the proceedings by filing written

statement. The defendants stoutly denied the entire

6

averments made in the plaint. At para 16 of the written

statement, the defendants specifically contended that land

bearing Sy.Nos.5/10A, 5/10B, 5/10C and 5/12A, 5/12B and

5/12C was originally owned by one Yellappa. After his death,

his sons effected partition in the family on 16.01.1944. Under

the said partition, Sy.No.5/10 measuring 26 guntas was

equally divided among the legal heirs of Yellappa and each

were allotted 5 guntas. The defendants have also contended

that two sons of Yellappa who were allotted their respective

shares have gone missing for 20 years and their whereabouts

were not known and therefore, the properties which were

allotted to the share of Vaddara Yellappa who died issueless

and Ramaiah who was allotted Sy.Nos.5/10A and 5/12 to an

extent of 4 guntas was transferred in the name of

Y.Rangaswamy on the statement given by the eldest brother

Chengappa.

The

defendants

further

contended

that

Y.Rangaswamy was not the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property and as they were ancestral proper