In a suit for injunction against interference, absence of a substantial challenge to the plaintiff's title allows the suit to stand without a concurrent request for title declaration.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S.No.7876/2006 on the file of the XVII Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-16) (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010 passed therein by which, the suit filed by him was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants before the Trial Court.

3. (i) A suit in O.S.No.7876/2006 was filed for perpetual injunction in respect of a house bearing Site No.1, House List khata No.160, situated at Babusabarapalya, Chelakere Dhakale, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring East to West 46 feet and North to South 30 feet. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed dated 27.10.1994 from the defendant No.2 for valuable consideration and that the sale deed was duly registered as document No.6725/94-95. After purchase, he was placed in possession of the suit property and all the revenue records stood in his name. He claimed that Horamavu Agara Village Panchayat had issued Form No.12 in his name and was also receiving the property tax. He claimed that he had paid the property tax and was also paying water and electricity charges. He had constructed two rooms on the suit property and in one of the rooms, security guards were staying while other room was used by him as and when he visited the suit property.

(ii) The plaintiff claimed that he received an electricity bill dated 26.08.2006 that was issued in the name of defendant No.1. This generated suspicion in the mind of the plaintiff and after making enquiry, he came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had conspired and had brought about a sale deed registered in the name of defendant No.1 by giving different khata. The plaintiff also made enquiry in the Office of the Sub- Registrar and came to know that the sale deed dated 03.04.2006 was executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff thereafter obtained a copy of the sale deed and he found that defendant No.2 and his sons had sold the suit property to the defendant No.1 by mentioning a non-existent khata No.107/163. The plaintiff therefore, lodged a complaint before the police and thereafter, followed it up by filing a suit for perpetual injunction to protect his possession.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 who inter alia denied the averments made in the plaint and also denied that defendant No.2 had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit property and that the revenue records stood in the name of the plaintiff. He also denied that the plaintiff had paid property tax in respect of the suit property. He also denied that the plaintiff had obtained electricity and water connection to the suit property. He claimed that the defendant No.2 had conveyed the suit property to the plaintiff and therefore, there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and hence, suit for bare injunction was not maintainable.

5. The defendant No.3 also filed written statement denying the execution of the sale deed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff and termed the sale deed as fictitious and that the defendant No.2 had no authority in law to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He also contended that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff did not concern the suit property and that the property bearing site No.1 was identified as house list No.107/163 and not house list No.1