A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff's title and possession are seriously disputed; in such instances, the plaintiff must seek a decree of declaration and possession. Furthermore, a second appeal under Section 100 CPC requires the formulation of a substantial question of law.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.54/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.117/2012 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.G. B. Nandish Gowda.

2. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge JMFC-Pandapura in RA No. 54/2022 dated 16.01.2025, which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC- Pandapura in O.S.No.117/2012. The plaintiff is before this Court aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts of dismissal of the suit filed by him for a permanent injunction.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, having purchased the property from one Kempegowda, son of the late.Kempe Gowda and his wife Smt.Vanajakshi through a registered sale deed dated 03.06.2009. It is also stated that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. All panchayath records stand in the name of the plaintiff. Apart from that, the plaintiff has paid all the revenue taxes to the authorities. Plaintiff intended to construct a house on the suit schedule property, and on 30.06.2011, she approached the concerned officer for a grant of license, she had stored all the construction materials, at that time, the defendants, who have absolutely no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property, started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff being a lady, unable to resist the money and muscle power of the defendants, filed a suit for permanent injunction.

5. On summons being served, defendants appeared before the Court and filed their statement, and based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is in actual lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proved that, the alleged interference over the suit schedule property by the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief as sought for?

4. What order or decree?

6. In order to substantiate the issues and establish her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29. The DW1 entered the witness box and got examined himself and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 in support of their case. Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court after consideration of the evidence and the records, did not find favour with the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in RA No.54/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura. In the first appellate Court, the defendants, on appearance, filed their statement and based on the records of the trial Court, the first appellate Court, upon re-appreciation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, formulated the fol