The court reinforced that financial difficulties do not justify prolonged appeal delays and maintained the lower court's dismissal of a suit lacking necessary ownership declarations.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed in OS No.226/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad (for short, ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed which is confirmed by the judgement and order dated 25.04.2017 in RA No.5/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. Plaintiffs have filed the above suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit property in land bearing Plot No.296/2 (old RS No.207) measuring 11.33 acres situated at Kalageri village, taluk Dharwad, on the premise that one Hanumanthgouda Laxmangouda Patil had executed an agreement of sale dated 13.04.1960 in favour of the plaintiffs and one Parvatevva Bevinkoppa for Rs.1,750/-. That the plaintiffs had paid Rs.800/- towards part payment of sale consideration. However, the said person did not come forward to execute the sale deed. That due to illiteracy plaintiffs did not file Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights. However, plaintiffs submitted Form No.7-A subsequently, which was rejected by the concerned authorities by order dated 29.11.2004. As against which the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No.130/2005 which is pending consideration. That though the defendants are strangers to the property have created false documents in the nature of deeds of sale and deed of partition had obtained entries of their names in the revenue records based on which they are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants in their written statement apart from denying the claim of the plaintiffs having any right, title and interest in the suit property have also contended that they are the absolute owner of the suit property being in possession of the same and as such the suit for bare injunction was just not maintainable.

4. Based on which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants?

3. Whether defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration as contended in para No.4 of the written statement?

4. Whether defendants prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit in view of Land Reforms Act as contended in para No.8 of the written statement?

5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

6. What order or decree?

5. The Trial Court recorded the evidence and on appreciation of evidence, applying the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy , [ (2008) 4 SCC 594 ], dismissed the suit as not maintainable.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred regular appeal in RA No.5/2013. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

2. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court require interference in this Appeal by this Court?

3. What Decree of Order?

7. Taking note of the admitted facts of the case of the plaintiffs of they claiming to be the agreement holder as well as they waiting for orders in the