The court affirmed the lower courts' findings on possession, emphasizing the validity of perpetual injunction in property disputes.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2014 passed in R.A. No.21/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M. Karkala and the judgment and decree dated

14.02.2013 passed in O.S. No. 40/2009 by the learned Civil Judge and J. M. F. C. Moodbidri.

2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on that rankings before the trial Court. Appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows, The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant from trespassing into plaint A schedule property etc. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property and the ancestors had made improvements to the suit schedule 'A' property. It is contended that the defendant panchayath, is acting under the influence of local politicians who are not on good terms with the plaintiffs and are agitating to take forcible possession of plaint A schedule property from the plaintiffs. The defendant panchayath and the other officials attempted to dispossess the plaintiffs from the plaint A schedule property. Hence, the cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit.

4. The defendant panchayath, filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs filed an identical suit in O.S. No.196/1998 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mangalore for declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired the title over suit property by way of adverse possession. The plaint was returned to present before the jurisdictional Court. The plaintiffs did not take any steps and the suit was closed. Hence, it is contended that the present suit is hit by the Doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues.

6. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. In rebuttal, the Secretary of the defendant panchayath, was examined as DW.1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.D1 to D12.

7. The trial Court, after recording evidence and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 14.02.2013 and restrained the defendant panchayath, by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property, destroying its enclosures or improvements or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and also restrained in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property by the plaintiffs.

8. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment passed in O.S. No. 40/2009, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.21/2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Karkala.

9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the relevant points for consideration. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 06.07.2014. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant.

11. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit schedule property is government land, and the name of the government appears in the revenue records. He submits that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the plaintiffs have given up their rights regarding the title based on adverse possession. Hen