Heard Shri Aditya B Sondhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the appellant and Shri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal by the defendant.

3. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the original plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, a building on site bearing No.12/2, Old Site No.13, formed in land bearing Survey No.73, New Guddadahalli, Kempapura Agrahara, now called as Kuvempunagara, I Main Road, B Street, Corporation Division No.33, Bangalore, measuring east to west 30 feet and South to north 60 feet. The plaintiff is said to have purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 5.5.1956 from one Shri N. Anjanee Rao Sindhe. It was claimed that at the time of purchase of the suit schedule property, the western boundary was a house site bearing No.14, but however, subsequently, the same had been converted into a road and was being used as such since several years. The property bearing Site No.12, which belonged to one H. Venkataramanappa was on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, which was sold to one Ahamadulla Khan and Ahamadulla Khan had constructed a building on the said site. Beyond the road on the western side of the suit schedule property, there was property bearing No.15, which belonged to one Navarathanmal. On the northern side of the suit schedule property, there was a main road and towards south, there was a conservancy lane. The plaintiff claimed that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that he was paying taxes to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

It is further claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant had no right or interest over any portion of the suit schedule property and since the defendant had sought to interfere with the property, the present suit was filed.

The defendant, on his appearance, had filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was contended that the address of the plaintiff mentioned in the cause title of the suit was not correct and that the plaintiff was a permanent resident of Achamanahalli, Y.N. Hosakote Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. The defendant had admitted the execution of the sale deed dated 5.5.1956 in favour of the plaintiff by one N. Anjanee Rao Sindhe in respect of a site bearing No.13. The boundaries in respect of site no.13 were alleged to be incorrect and misleading. The defendant had further denied that at the time of purchase of the property, the western boundary was a site bearing no.14 and subsequently a portion of the said site was converted into a road and was being used as such over the years. The claim that on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, there was site bearing no.12, which belonged to one H. Venkataramanappa, and the same was sold to one Ahmadulla Khan and that he had constructed a building thereon, was denied.

It was further contended that the plaintiff and his brother had attempted to trespass into site no.15 of New Guddadahalli, which was in the possession of the plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit and therefore, the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.1650/1990 against the plaintiff and his brother one N.C.Ramaiah and there was an order of temporary injunction in favour of the defendant. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff had obtained an order of statusquo in the said suit by furnishing false boundaries in respect of the suit property therein, and hence the present suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable.

The trial court based on the pleadings of the parties, has framed the following issues:

“1. Does the plaintiff prove lawful possession of the suit property?

2. Does the plaintiff prove interference by the defendant?

3.