THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2023. PASSED IN RA NO.295/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.124/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT, APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.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.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in R.A.No.295/2019 dated 21.02.2023 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.124/2001, dated 19.12.2015.

3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants, for the sake of brevity.

4. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction, contending that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed dated 12.06.1997 for lawful consideration and he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as an absolute owner. The suit schedule property thereafter was converted for non- agricultural purposes, pursuant to which the plaintiff sold site No.2 measuring 40x70 feet in favour of one Savitha and delivered the possession of the same to her. Another site bearing No.3, measuring 40X70 feet, was sold to one P.Mamatha and possession was delivered. Pursuant to the sale of two sites, the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the remaining portion as described in the schedule and he has put up a compound wall and a shed on the suit schedule property. It is pleaded that the defendant No.1 is an influential, powerful person with money power and muscle power, in collusion with the other defendants was making hectic efforts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and hence, he filed suit against the defendants for the relief of a permanent injunction.

5. After summons being served, defendant Nos.2 and 3 appeared and filed their written statement. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 is reported to be dead. Hence, the case against him abated. In the written statement, defendant Nos.2 and 3 denied the averments made in the plaint, contending that, defendant No.3 is the owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property, having purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1996 for a valuable sale consideration from its lawful owner, and the khata thereafter was changed in the name of defendant No.3. Defendants in fact pleaded that the plaintiff was making hectic efforts to interfere with the lawful possession of the suit schedule property of the defendants. Hence, she filed a suit in O.S.No.167/2001, which is still pending consideration. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are causing interference of his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether defendants No.2 and 3 prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule properties as describe in para No.6 and 7 of their written statement?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed?

5. What Order or Decree?

7. In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and examined one more witness as PW2, whereas defendant No.2 examined herself as DW1 and another wi