Bangalore District Court
Smt.S.Parimala vs Sri.A.T.Gopalaraje Gowda on 20 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45).
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL 2018.
: PRESENT :
Shri.SHIVARAMA.K, B.Com., LL.M.,
XLIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.6787/2014
Plaintiff: Smt.S.Parimala,W/o Shbarinatha,
Aged about 45 years, R/at No.54,
Arabindo Street, Pondichery -
605001.
Represented by her Special Power
of Attorney Holder;
Sabarinathan, S/o N.M.Narayana
Swamy, aged about 53 years,
residing at Shivaganga Enclave,
F-2, No.50, Ankappa Layout,
Uttarahalli, Bangalore.
[By Sri.S.G.Prabhakar., Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant: Sri.A.T.Gopalaraje Gowda, S/o
H.Thimmaiah, Aged about 49
years, R/at No.105, Sapthagiri,
S.S.Residence, Chunchaghatta
Main Road, Yelachenahalli,
Bangalore - 560 062.
[By Sri.K.T.Dakappa., Adv.]
2 O.S.No.6787/2014
Date of Institution : 04.09.2014
Nature of the suit : For Permanent Injunction.
Date of recording
of evidence : 23.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 20.04.2018
Total Duration : Day/s Month/s Year/s
16 07 03
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant or any persons claiming under him from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit property.
2. Suit item No.1 property is house site measuring 42' x 40' in site No.32, katha No.354/32 formed in survey No.39 (old No.8/4) situated at Voddarapalya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, within the boundaries stated in the plaint and item No.2 property is house site measuring 42' x 40' in site No.27, katha No.349/27, formed in survey No.39 (old No.8/2) 3 O.S.No.6787/2014 situated at Voddarapalya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, within the boundaries stated in the plaint.
3. It is not in dispute that one Chikkananjappa was the owner of the land in survey No.39 (old No.8/4) of Voddarapalya village to an extent of 1 acre 39 guntas. It appears in Ex.D1 certified copy of sale deed that the above said land was granted in favour of Guthappa the father of Chikkananjappa on 17.1.1949, and he had sold the land in favour of Annappareddy on 7.11.1966, and Annappareddy had sold the same in favour of Dhanalakshami and thereafter, it was transferred to the name of Rangarama setty, Aswatha Setty and Adinarayana Setty as per M.R.No.2/1990-1991 and 1/1994-1995. Thereafter, in view of the petition been filed by Chikkananjappa under S.C., S.T., case No.39/1993-1994 the land was restored in favour of the 1st vendor by name Guthappa.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that 4 O.S.No.6787/2014 Chikkananjappa had formed private lay out and on 1.10.2003 Chikkananjappa, his wife and the children had sold item No.1 and 2 of suit property in favour of one Pramod Yaligar and Praveen Yaligar respectively and on 10.3.2004 Pramod Yaligar and Praveen Yaligar in turn had sold the same in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, khatha has been changed in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The case of the defendant is that he had purchased 21 guntas of land out of 1 acre 39 guntas in survey 39 (old No.8/4) on 28.5.2013 from Chikkananjappa, after the permission been obtained from the Government to sell the land. Further, the sale by Chikkananjappa in favour of the plaintiff's vendor is hit by Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act 1978. Thereby, the plaintiff won't acquire any title. Further, since the land was granted in favour of the persons belonging to scheduled caste, any transaction 5 O.S.No.6787/2014 done without permission of the Government is void. Further, in view of the purchase by the defendant, he has become the owner in possession of 21 guntas of land as stated above. Hence, sought to dismiss the suit.
6. On the basis of the material proposition of fact and law affirmed by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant, this Court has framed the issues as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by her?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
7. To prove the case, the power of attorney 6 O.S.No.6787/2014 holder of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 documents. The defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to and D10 documents.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.2 : In affirmative Issue No.3 : In affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue NO.1: Admittedly, suit site is a vacant land. Therefore, constructive possession over the suit property could only be inferred on the documents produced. Plaintiff's husband (PW.1) being the power of attorney holder of plaintiff has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief. P.W.1 and defendant (DW.1) have filed affidavits in the form of their respective 7 O.S.No.6787/2014 evidence in chief. They have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings in the affidavit filed. To prove the authority to depose before the Court, P.W.1 has produced Ex.P1 special power of attorney executed by the plaintiff.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that through the sale deeds, the plaintiff was put in possession over the suit property and the same has not been cancelled so far. Further, once the possession has been delivered in favour of the purchaser through a sale deed, the possession cannot be divested in favour of any body unless the possession given through a document has been cancelled. It is undisputed that one Chikkananjappa was the owner of the suit property. According to P.W.1 Chikkananjappa had formed private lay out and had sold suit item No.1 in favour of one Pramod Yaligar through the sale deed dated: 1.10.2003 vide Ex.P2. On perusal of Ex.P2 it could be seen that 8 O.S.No.6787/2014 Chikkananjappa, his wife and children had sold suit item No.1 property in favour of one Pramod Yaligar had in turn he sold the same in favour of the plaintiff through the sale deed dated: 10.3.2004 vide Ex.P3. Further, on perusal of Ex.P4 certified copy of sale deed it appears that Chikkananjappa, his wife and children had sold suit item No.2 in favour of Praveen Yaligar on 1.10.2003 and he in turn sells the said property in favour of the plaintiff through the sale deed dated: 10.3.2004. Ex.P5 is certified copy of the said sale deed. Subsequently, khatha has been changed in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.P7. Ex.P8 is the khatha extract stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P9 indicates that plaintiff had paid tax for the period 2008-2009 to 2015-2016. Ex.P10 is the encumbrance certificate for the period 1.10.2003 to 10.3.2004 and 1.4.2005 to 12.1.2016, in which the name of the plaintiff appears. Therefore, as on the date of suit, the name of plaintiff appears in the khatha as well as 9 O.S.No.6787/2014 encumbrance certificate.
12. DW.1 in the cross-examination in page No.8 had deposed that she came to know after the institution of the present suit about the sites formed and sold by Chikkananjappa. It is admitted by P.W.1 in page No.10 of the cross-examination that he has not obtained lay out plan from the village Panchayath nor did he put attempt to obtain plan from there. Further, he has not produced any document to evidence that he had formed lay out in survey No.39. Hence, from the above evidence, it could be inferred that no lay out plan has been approved by the competent authority. I feel, since DW.1 has admitted that a layout was formed by Chikkananjappa, it could be inferred that a private lay out has been formed by Chikkananjappa. On the basis of the private lay out been formed Chikkananjappa and his family members sold the suit sites in favour of plaintiff's vendor and the said sale deed came to be registered. Thereafter, the plaintiff had 10 O.S.No.6787/2014 purchased the suit sites through the sale deed. It is averred in the sale deed vide Ex.P3 and P5 that the possession has been delivered in favour of the purchaser. Since, the suit sites are vacant sites, the constructive possession could only be transferred through the documents. Accordingly, the vendors had delivered the possession in favour of the purchasers. Further, after ascertaining the fact, the competent authority had entered the name of the plaintiff in the khatha register and had collected the tax.
13. It is not in dispute that an extent of 1 acre 39 guntas in survey No.39 (old No.8/4) at Voddarapalya village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was stood in the name of Chikkananjappa bin Guthappa. According to DW.1 the land in survey No.8/4 was granted in favour of one Guthappa, the father of Chikkananjappa and Guthappa sold the same in favour of Annappa Reddy on 7.11.1966, and the said Annappa Reddy in turn sold to 11 O.S.No.6787/2014 one Smt.Dhanalakshmi. Thereafter, the land was transferred to Rangarama Setty, Aswatha Setty as well as Adinarayana Setty as per the revenue document. Since, the said transfers were hit by PTCL Act, on the basis of the petition been filed by Chikkananjappa an order was passed to restore the entire extent of land in favour of Chikkananjappa. Thereafter, Chikkananjappa obtained permission to sell the land in favour of him, accordingly, he sold an extent of 21 guntas in favour of the defendant. The order of said restoration is not produced.
14. According to DW.1, as stated above, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was not a subject matter in the order of restoration of the land. Therefore, it appears that in the absence of the plaintiff, the order of restoration might have been passed. However, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P6 the permission dated:
14.8.2003 granted in favour of Chikkananjappa to alienate the entire extent in survey No.39. No document 12 O.S.No.6787/2014 been produced with regard to the cancellation of the sale deeds executed by Chikkananjappa and his family members in favour of the plaintiff's vendors and plaintiff.
In the RTC produced by DW.1 vide Ex.D3 for the year 2015 - 2016 the name of Chikkananjappa is shown as possessor, as per the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. On the date of suit, the name of plaintiff is shown in the khatha and sale deeds as possessor. No doubt, in the mutation register extract vide Ex.D4 mutation was effected in favour of Chikkananjappa, as per the order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Ex.P6. Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.4.2013 to 2.3.2016, in Sl.No.6 it appears that Chikkananjappa had executed sale deed in favour of defendant and one G.Srinivas to an extent of 21 guntas. Ex.D6 is the khatha extract stands in the name of defendant and one G.Srinivas pertains to 21 guntas of land and Ex.D7 is the 13 O.S.No.6787/2014 property extract for the year 2008 to 2014, in which the name of defendant and one Srinivas is shown as owners in respect of 21 guntas. In Ex.D8 tax paid receipt, it appears that defendant had paid tax for the year 2015 - 2016.
15. I feel, since the documents effected in favour of the defendant are subsequent to the sale deed been executed in favour of the plaintiff, the constructive possession of the plaintiff could only be inferred.
16. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that since the suit property is a vacant site, possession follows with the title and Ex.D2 indicates that the property to an extent of 1 acre 39 guntas in survey No.39, (old No.8/4) was granted in favour of SC., ST., and the same is hit by PTCL Act. On perusal of Ex.D1, it appears that Deputy Commissioner by his order dated:
2.7.2006 permitted to alienate the property in favour of the defendant, in the said certificate, number of 14 O.S.No.6787/2014 conditions were imposed as contemplated under section 4(2) of Karnataka Schedule Casts and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978. In a suit for injunction even if the plaintiff has no title over the property, if the possession is proved, is entitled for injunction for protection of his possession.
17. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that by virtue of the restoration of the property in favour of Chikkananjappa, the plaintiff has lost possession. As I already stated above, since the order of restoration has not been produced, it cannot be said that the constructive possession of the plaintiff has been divested and invested in favour of Chikkananjappa. It is contended by the learned counsel for defendant that since the construction is hit by PTCL Act, plaintiff won't acquire any title thereby, he is not entitled for injunction.
18. In support of the contention, counsel relies the judgment reported in ILR 2005 Karnataka 1381, 15 O.S.No.6787/2014 Veeramma Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and others, 2005(4) KCCR 2953, Smt.Muniakkayyamma Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division and others, 2005(4) KCCR 2379, Manchegowda (deceased) by L.Rs., Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District and others. In the said judgments Lordships have held that in view of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, after coming into force of the Act, the transfer of granted land without permission of the Government is void, even though, the transfer is effected after the period of non alienation. In the case in hand, no doubt, the transaction in favour of the plaintiff was hit by PTCL Act. For mere because the transaction is hit by PTCL Act, it cannot be said that possession has not been delivered in favour of the vendee.
19. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the burden is heavily casted on the plaintiff to prove his possession. In support of his 16 O.S.No.6787/2014 contention, he relies the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 1971, Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh. In the said judgment by considering Section 101, 102 and 111 of Indian Evidence Act, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 and the said Section is a inflexible one. In terms of Section 102, the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. In the case in hand, I feel sale deeds stated above and the khatha certificate are sufficient to infer the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendant has not placed any material about the restoration of the land in favour of Chikkananjappa from the plaintiff thereby the defendant has failed to discharge the onus shifted on him.
17 O.S.No.6787/2014
20. It is further contended by the learned counsel for defendant that since the transaction in between Chikkananjappa and the plaintiff's vendor was against the public policy, the same is hit by Section 23 of Indian Contract Act. In support of the contention counsel relies the judgment reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2676 Papaiah, Vs. State of Karnataka and others. In the said judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the transaction in contravention of public policy is hit by Section 23 of Contract Act and the purchaser does not get any right.
21. Further, counsel for defendant also relies the judgment reported in
a) ILR 2007 Karnataka 457 SC M.Gurudas and others Vs. Rasaranjan and others,
b) ILR 1989 Karnataka 1701, Sri.Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. Sri.Siddhaganga Mutt, 18 O.S.No.6787/2014
c) ILR 1992 Karnataka 2905, R.Dilip Kumar Vs. S.Ramu.
22. In the said judgments Lordships have held with regard to points to be taken note of while considering application U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., Further counsel has also relied the judgment reported in ILR 1992 Karnataka 2916, Karibasappa Sivalingappa Nalawadad Vs. Tirukappa Nagappa Sortur. In the said judgment Lordship has held that the question whether a particular person is a tenant or not is to be decided not by the Civil Court but by the Land Tribunal Concerned. In the case in hand, in a suit for injunction, title need not be looked into and it is to be seen with regard to the possession over the suit property.
23. Contrary to that, learned counsel for plaintiff contends that since the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff's vendor has not been challenged before any other authority, the possession shall be 19 O.S.No.6787/2014 presumed to be in accordance with the sale deed. In support of the contention, counsel relies the judgment reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2097, Krishna Ram Mahala Vs. Shobha Venkat Rao. In the said judgment Lordship has held that it is a well settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption he had no right to remain in property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property, except by recourse to law. Further, counsel relies the judgment reported in ILR 2006 Karnataka 1047, Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs., Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs., and another. In the said judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held that so far as the Indian Law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.
24. Further, Counsel relies the judgment reported 20 O.S.No.6787/2014 in AIR 1972 SC 2299, M.Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V.Lakshminarayana Rao. In the said judgment Lordship has held by referring Section 37 of Specific Relief Act that on the strength of the possession, the plaintiff can resist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession. Further, counsel relies the judgment reported in (1989)4 SCC 131, Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his L.Rs., Vs. Mrs.Shobha Venkat Rao. By referring Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, Lordships have held that occupant in possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law. Further counsel relies the judgment reported in 1982(2) Karnataka Law Journal 561, Mallawwa Vs. Balappa. In the said judgment in the circumstances of the case in para No.15 it is held that the ''question of title will have to be kept open but without denying the plaintiff's claim for an injunction''. Further, there is 21 O.S.No.6787/2014 nothing on record to show that the plaintiff had gained possession by any unfair means just prior to the suit. Hence, the permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff as sought in the plaint by keeping open to establish their title with regard to the property in question. Further counsel also relies the judgment reported in AIR 1999 Andhra Pradesh 188, P.Buchi Reddy and others Vs. Ananthula Sudhakar. In the said judgment, it is held that U/s 34 of Specific Relief Act a mere suit for declaration does not lie when the consequential relief like injunction is available. But, U/s 38 of Specific Relief Act Injunction can be granted even if no declaratory relief is expressly prayed for. Further counsel also relies the judgment reported in AIR 1995 Karnataka 238, Kallappa Rama Londa Vs. Shivappa Nagappa Aparaj and others. By referring Section 37 of the Act, it is held that even if possession is being not legal, suit for injunction without declaration is 22 O.S.No.6787/2014 maintainable. Further counsel also relies the judgment reported in ILR 1994 Karnataka, 3267, B.T.Sakku Vs. Commissioner, BDA., In the said judgment Lordship has held that a person in settled possession cannot be evicted except in due course of law. Further a person can said to be in settled possession if it is uninterrupted and his possession is not precarious. Further, counsel relies the judgment reported in ILR 1999, Karnataka 383, N.S.Satyanarayana Vs. Thimmappa and another. In the said judgment in para No.8 it is held that injunction cannot be refused on the ground that possession of the plaintiff cannot be construed as lawful if it is found that the plaintiff is in possession over the property.
25. Apart from that, counsel has also relied the judgment reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 104 M.C.Chockalingam and others Vs. Manickavasagam and others. In the said judgment it is held that lawful possession is not litigious possession and must have 23 O.S.No.6787/2014 some foundation in a legal right to possess the property which cannot be equated with a temporary right to enforce recovery of the property in case a person is wrongfully or forcibly dispossessed from it. Juridical possession is possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession. Further, counsel relies the judgment reported in AIR 1977 SC 619, Ram Rattan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. In the said judgment it is held that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser, while the trespasser is in the act or process of trespassing and has not accomplished his possession, but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies available 24 O.S.No.6787/2014 under the law. Further, counsel relies judgment reported in 1999 Karnataka 1451 Sathy @ Ramaiah and others Vs. Karnataka Milk Federation Co- operative Limited. In the said judgment while considering the application U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., it is held that where a trespasser is in settled possession of the land, is entitled to resist or defend his possession even as against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. Further, counsel relies the judgment reported in ILR 1995 Karnataka 183, C.Bhaskar Vs. State of Karnataka. In the said judgment it is held that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed even by the owner, otherwise than by proceeding in accordance with the procedure established by law. Further, counsel relies the judgment reported in AIR 1980 Kerala 224, Karthiyayani Amma Vs. Govindan. In the said judgment it is held that a person in possession of immovable property can sustain a suit for injunction 25 O.S.No.6787/2014 against the rightful owner preventing him from disturbing his possession.
26. I have considered the principles laid down in the judgments relied by both the parties. In the case in hand, as stated above, on available evidence, it appears to me that plaintiff has been in possession over the suit property from the date of sale deed been executed in favour of him. Hence, I answer this issue in partly affirmative.
27. Issue No.2: Defendant claims that the suit property is involved in the property purchased by him. According to DW.1 as stated in para No.8 of his affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief that after getting permission, the said Chikkananjappa dodged him, in not executing the sale deed and on persuasion he sold 21 guntas of land in his favour. Since, Chikkananjappa had sold the property in favour of Pramod Yaligar and Praveen Yaligar in the year 2003 he might have dodged in not 26 O.S.No.6787/2014 executing the sale deed in favour of defendant herein. According to him, he was put in possession of entire 21 guntas of land and he leveled the land and kept it vacant for development by compounding the land. To evidence the said fact no document has been produced. Therefore, the very assertion of DW.1 that he took possession and leveled the land and put up compound wall itself amounts to interference over the right of the plaintiff in enjoying the suit property. Hence, I answer this issue in affirmative.
28. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given on issue No.1 and 2 and discussions made above and findings on issue No.1 and 2, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, I answer this issue in affirmative.
29. Issue No.4: Since, on available records it appears that the suit property is hit by PTCL Act, the possession of the plaintiff cannot be held as lawful. 27 O.S.No.6787/2014 Therefore, only remedy the plaintiff entitled is that he shall not be dispossessed from the suit property without due process of law. In the peculiar circumstances of case, parties have to bear their own cost. In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed.
Defendant or any persons claiming under him are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property without recourse to law.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2018).
(SHIVARAMA.K) XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.28 O.S.No.6787/2014
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Sabarinathan LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : A.T.Gopalaraje Gowda LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 : Sprvisleneral power of attorney Ex.P2 : Certified copy of sale deed dtd:1.10.2003 Ex.P3 : Certified copy of sale deed dtd:10.03.2003 Ex.P4 : Certified copy of sale deed dtd:10.03.2004 Ex.P5 : Certified copy of sale deed dtd:10.03.2004 Ex.P6 : Certified copy of conversion order of D.C. Ex.P7 : Two khatha certificates Ex.P8 : Two khatha extracts Ex.P9 : Two tax paid receipts Ex.P10 : 4 Encumbrance certificates LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of sale deed 29 O.S.No.6787/2014 dtd:28.5.2013 Ex.D2 : Certified copy of order of conversion Ex.D3 : Certified copy of RTC Ex.D4 : Certified copy of mutation register Ex.D5 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate Ex.D6 : Certified copy of khatha Ex.D7 : Certified copy of assessment register extract Ex.D8 : Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.D9 : Four photographs Ex.D10 : C.D. XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. 30 O.S.No.6787/2014 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (VIDE SEPARATE JUDGMENT) Suit is decreed. Defendant or any persons claiming under him are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property without recourse to law.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(SHIVARAMA.K) XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.31 O.S.No.6787/2014