ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2024 passed in RA.No.35/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2017 passed in O.S.No.100/2008 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, where the suit for permanent injunction came to be decreed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.

2. Though this Court has not yet issued notice to the respondents, Sri Vivek S., learned counsel has filed vakalath on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The same is accepted.

3. Parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing No.242/1 measuring 1 acre, Taroor Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the property belonged to one Siddaiah, S/o.Kadaraiah and the said Siddaiah sold the property in favour of the plaintiffs' father by name, Karichittaiah, S/o.Emmigaiah through a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1963.

4.1 Based on the said sale deed, mutation was effected in favour of the plaintiffs' father in MR No.6/1963-64. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that pursuant to the sale deed, mutation entries are changed in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Pursuant to the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and the names of the plaintiffs are mutated in MR.No.5/1992-93. The plaintiffs have been paying tax to the concerned authorities and they are growing crops every year without any interference. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant, who has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, they filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.

4.2 Upon summons being issued in the suit to the defendant, the defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs.

4.3 On the basis of the pleadings and rival contentions made by both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are causing interference to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?

4. What Order or Decree?"

4.4 In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and three other witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked 29 documents as per Exs.P1 to P29 on their behalf. Whereas, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and also another witness as DW.2 and got marked 26 documents as per Exs.D1 to D26.

4.5 Based on the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, after considering all the documents which were placed on record, did not find favour with the submissions made and the contentions taken by the defendant. However, the trial Court accepted the version of the plaintiffs with regard to the possession and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

4.6 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court in R.A.No.35/2017.

4.7 The respondents therein i.e. the plaintiffs appeared before the Court and contested the matter and the first Appellate Court, after reconsideration of the e