Sri.V.B.Shivakumar., learned counsel for appellants

and Sri.H.N.Vidyadhar., learned counsel for respondent

No.1 have appeared in person.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

It is stated that the ancestors of plaintiff were stone

cutters, belonged to Bhovi Community which is classified as

Schedule Caste. The plaintiff was the second daughter of

her father namely Rakhyappa who brought up children by

hard work, cutting stones in quarries for several decades.

After her marriage with one Ramaraju, the plaintiff has

begotten three sons and four daughters. It is said that on

4

account of old age, the plaintiff is living separately and she

is looked after by her daughters.

It is stated that the suit schedule property has been

granted by the State Government for up-set price in favor

of plaintiff on the basis of exclusive cultivation and issued

the Saguvali Chit on 23.02.1979. There is a condition of

non-alienation of the suit property for a period of 15 years

from the date of grant. The plaintiff is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

It is averred that the first defendant obtained a

bogus death certificate dated 28.05.1996 from the

Commissioner, CMC, Pattanagere and has sold bits of

schedule property in favor of other defendants.

Hence, plaintiff was constrained to initiate action

against the defendants and filed a suit for bare injunction.

In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants

appeared and filed written statement. The first defendant

contended that his father Ramaraju was the grantee of the

5

suit schedule property under the Government Order and

Saguvali Chit was issued.

The

defendant

specifically

contended

that

in

O.S.No.5511/1996 the plaintiff has categorically stated that

her fathers name is Maraswamy @ Kakaiah and the plaintiff

used to sign in Tamil in all court records etc., It was also

admitted by her that she is not a grantee in respect of the

suit schedule property. Among other grounds defendants

prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court has

framed the issues as under:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that, she was in lawful

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property as described in the suit schedule

including location, identification, measurement

and boundaries on the date of the suit?

2. Whether

plaintiff

proves

that,

defendant

interfered

in

her

peaceful

possession

and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property on

08.03.2006?

6

3. Whether suit for bare injunction is maintainable

without plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of

title to the suit schedule property?

4. What order or decree?

In support of her case, plaintiff got examined as

PW-1 and got marked 25 documents which were marked as

Exs.P-1 to P-25. One Manjunath was examined as PW-2

and Smt.Saraswathi was examined as PW-3. On behalf of

defendants, the first defendant was examined as DW-1 and

got marked 16 documents which were marked as Exs.D1 to

D16.

On the trial of action, the suit came to be decreed.

Hence, this appeal is filed on several grounds as set out in

the Memorandum of Appeal memo.

Learned

Counsel

for

appellant

and

first

respondent have urged several contentions.

Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar learned counsel for

appellant has relied on the following decisions:

7

1. AIR 2008 SC 2033 - ANATHULA SUDHAKAR Vs.

P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LR9S AND OTHERS.

2. AIR 2007 KARNATAKA 40 - SMT. NIRMALA Vs.

NAVEEN CHHAGGAR AND ANOTHER.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the

parties and perused the records with care.

7.

The

short

and

simple

question

requires

consideration is whether plaintiff9s suit for permanent

injunction

without

seeking

declaration

of

title

is

maintainable under law?

8.

The suit giving rise to this appeal was brought

by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction.

Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar learned counsel for appellant

while presenting argumen