Possession can be protected despite the absence of legal title, and unregistered documents can hold evidentiary value in demonstrating lawful possession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 - Permanent injunction - Appeals against trial court’s decisions regarding the rightful possession of property acquired for cooperative housing - Lawful possession can exist absent legal title so long as it is peaceful and uncontested - Unregistered documents can have evidentiary value in establishing possession. (Paras 19, 24, 28)

(B) Commonality of factual background in multiple suits against a plaintiff asserting possession over contested property, leading to claims of rightful ownership based upon unregistered sale deeds exchanged between former office bearers of a housing society - Claims were examined with reference to interlinked evidence and admissions made during cross-examinations, revealing irregularities and lack of documentary support regarding ownership. (Paras 20, 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, claiming possession of 13 guntas of property originally owned by his family, instituted a suit after defendants attempted encroachment based on mutually exchanged unregistered sale deeds executed while they held roles in the cooperative society. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, ruling that no valid title was established, while defendants' claims were upheld.

Findings of Court:
Trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim was erroneous due to failure in recognizing the evidentiary value of unregistered documents regarding possession and reliance on improper interpretation of the defendants' claims to title.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiff's claim of possession based on unregistered documents and whether the defendants established lawful title to the contested property?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that possession could be protected in the absence of title, emphasizing that mutual sale deeds executed by defendants, who were office bearers, lacked lawful basis. The evidence of possession and historical ownership by the plaintiff took precedence.

Result: Appeals allowed; trial court’s decisions set aside. The plaintiff's suit granted while the defendants' suits dismissed.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

These three appeals arise out of three independent suits, while the subject matter in all the three suits is common. Though suits are independently decided by the trial Court, this Court deems it fit to club all the three appeals and pass a common judgment as the evidence led in all the three suits are relevant and the admissions elicited in all the three suits have to be read together.

2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties in O.S.No.2416/2014 shall be referred.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff, V. Krishna, instituted a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2416/2014, contending that he is in lawful possession of the suit property measuring 13 guntas, which originally formed part of Sy.No.60. The said survey number measuring 4 acres 2 guntas was acquired by the State Government to facilitate the formation of a residential layout by ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Limited. According to the plaintiff, since there was no specific scheme framed by the Society, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into post-acquisition, wherein the Society voluntarily relinquished 13 guntas in favour of the plaintiff. This portion of land was allegedly re-conveyed to him free of cost.

The plaintiff further averred that out of the 13 guntas, he gifted a portion measuring 35x80 ft. to his son, Naveen Kumar, through a registered gift deed, and that the remaining 8 guntas continues to be in his exclusive possession. It was also asserted that Naveen Kumar constructed a residential building on the gifted portion, while the remaining area is vacant.

Alleging interference, the plaintiff claimed that defendants Nos.1 and 2, who are members of the ITI Housing Society, made attempts to unlawfully encroach upon the suit property by deploying machinery with the intention of erecting a public structure. Upon further enquiry, the plaintiff discovered that defendants Nos.1 and 2 had mutually executed sale deeds in favour of each other during their tenure as office bearers of the Society, and were now asserting possession based on such documents.

Defendants Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statements. Defendants Nos.1 and 2, in their defence, denied the plaintiff’s title and contended that once the land was acquired by the State and handed over to the Housing Society, the plaintiff ceased to have any right or interest in the land. They alleged suppression of material facts by the plaintiff and asserted that the suit was filed to harass them and disturb their legitimate possession. They specifically relied on registered sale deeds dated 07.04.2003 and 16.06.2003, under which they claimed to have lawfully acquired title to their respective portions of the suit land. Defendant No.1, B. Rangaswamy, filed a separate suit for injunction in O.S.No.2838/2014 against the plaintiff V. Krishna, asserting possession and ownership over a site measuring 60x40 ft., based on the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2003. He placed reliance on a possession certificate dated 07.08.2003 and katha issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to support his claim of lawful possession.

Similarly, Defendant No.2, S. Krishnappa, filed O.S.No.2836/2014, also a suit for injunction simplicitor against the plaintiff, claiming ownership and possession over another portion of the property based on the registered sale deed dated 07.04.2003. He relied upon a possession certificate dated 25.05.2003, the BBMP katha issued in his favour, and tax payment receipts to substantiate his possession.

All the three suits were independently contested and prosecuted by the respective parties. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced in each case. Plaintiff V. Krishna contested the suits filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2, while they, in turn, contested the suit filed by him. Despite the interconnection of subject matter and parties, the suits were not clubbed and were disposed of separately by the trial Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document