DAIYAKKU Vs. KHATIJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/2013 passed in O.S.No.1011/2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangalore, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity) dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed for permanent injunction which was confirmed vide judgment and decree dtd. 13/2/2017 passed in R.A.No.131/2013 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, D.K. (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for brevity).

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff sought for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property i.e., the vacant site measuring 10 cents in Sy.No.79/5A situated at Kotekar Village, Mangalore Taluk. It is the contention of the plaintiff that total extent of 35 cents in Sy.No.79/5A was purchased by her and her husband late Ramayya Shetty, under the sale deed dtd. 28/10/1960. The husband of the plaintiff released his half share over the property under release/settlement deed dtd. 15/10/1966 in favour of plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property. It is contended that due to some internal dispute with her husband, plaintiff started residing separately along with her son and at that time, the father of the defendants Sri. U.P.Arabi kunhi in collusion with the husband of plaintiff concocted certain documents in respect of the schedule property. However, the said documents were not acted upon to mutate the names of the defendants. When the plaintiff applied for mutation of her name in the revenue records, it is brought to her notice that the mutation was affected only in respect of 18.75 cents. She came to know about the order passed by the Tahsildhar, Mangalore Taluk on 23/6/2010, where the defendants have applied for mutating their names in the revenue records. As per order dtd. 13/4/2010, the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, ordered for mutation of the name of the defendants said to be on the basis of the sale deed executed by the husband of plaintiff. It is contended that the husband of the plaintiff had no right over the schedule property to sell the same in favour of the defendants' father. It is stated that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff. Therefore, she filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.