The requirement for clear evidence of title in property disputes is essential for the grant of permanent injunctions.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Regular Second Appeal No.1060 of 2009 is filed by the defendants in Original Suit No.250 of 2003 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Kolar (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') challenging the judgment and decree dated 01^st June, 2009 passed in Regular Appeal No.159 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kolar (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), wherein, the judgment and decree dated 07^th February, 2007 passed in Original Suit No.250 of 2003 by the Trial Court came to be set-aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

2. Regular Second Appeal No.1059 of 2009 is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.168 of 2003, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01^st June, 2009 passed in Regular Appeal No.87 of 2008 by the First Appellate Court, wherein the judgment and decree dated 07^th February, 2007 passed in Original Suit No.168 of 2003 came to be set-aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

3. Since, the parties in these appeals are common and seeking relief of permanent injunction against each other, appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by a common judgment and decree.

4. The relevant facts for adjudication of Regular Second Appeal No.1059 of 2009 are as follows:

4.1. The plaintiff-Lakshmamma filed Original No.168 of 2003 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants viz., Nandi Narayanappa and Munivenkatamma. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the plaintiff during the year-1997 and as the defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession, she filed Original Suit No.168 of 2003.

4.2. After service of the notice, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the defendant No.1-Nandi Narayanappa by the then B.D.O. on 29^th September, 1997 and accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the suit

4.3. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration.

4.4. In order to establish their case, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and examined two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and examined one more witness as DW2 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits D1 to D4.

4.5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07^th February, 2007 decreed the suit and as such, restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 preferred Regular Appeal No.87 of 2008 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01^st June, 2009 allowed the appeal and consequently set-aside the judgment and decree dated 07^th February, 2007 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.168 of 2003. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred Regular Second Appeal No.1059 of 2009.

5. The relevant facts for adjudication of Regular Second Appeal No.1060 of 2009 are as follows:

5.1. The plaintiff-Nandi Narayanappa filed Original Suit No.250 of 2003 against the defendants viz., Venkatappa and Lakshmamma seeking relief of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property stating that the suit schedule property was granted to the plaintiff by the then B.D.O. d