R.MUNIRAJU Vs. RAJA GOPAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present appellant arraigning him as defendant in O.S.No.15619/2006, in the Court of the learned XIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, (CCH-22), Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'the trial Court'), seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant, his family members, agents, henchmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property or from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

(2.) The summary of the plaint averments in the trial Court was that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property, having acquired the same under registered Sale Deed dtd. 1/3/1993 from one Sri B.M.Prakash, for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.68,000.00. The plaintiff got entered his name in the revenue records and has been paying the property tax to Gram Panchayath, Uttarahalli. He is in actual, physical, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. That being the case, on the date 15/2/2006, the defendant tried to interfere and dispossess him from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is the stranger in respect of the suit schedule property and he is very influential person in the locality. Though the plaintiff approached the police, however, they issued an endorsement stating that the dispute is civil in nature and directed the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. On the date 30/3/2006, the defendant once again tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. This made the plaintiff to approach the trial Court by filing the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant.

(3.) In response to the suit summons served upon him, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement, wherein he denied all the material averments made in the plaint and also disputed the existence of the suit schedule property. He contended that when the very existence of the suit schedule property is doubtful, the question of enjoyment, ownership and possession upon the suit schedule property by the plaintiff does not arise. He denied his alleged interference and attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on the date 15/2/2006 and on 30/3/2006. He specifically contended that the property claimed by the plaintiff does not exist and the plaintiff is trying to make a claim over the property of the defendant. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any discretionary relief. The defendant further contended that the documents of the plaintiff are imaginary and without any semblance of right. The suit of the plaintiff is suppresio veri and suggestio falsi. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had suppressed the fact that one Sri Sundar, who is the owner of Site No.6, Katha No.7/4, situated at Uttarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (written statement schedule property), delivered the possession of the same to the defendant under the General Power of Attorney dtd. 27/7/2005. The defendant being the General Power of Attorney Holder, obtained power connection and water supply and paying the taxes in respect of the written statement schedule property. The said property is a portion of Survey No.7/4, originally owned by one Smt.Sharada Bai. After the demise of Smt.Sharada Bai, the Khatha was changed in the name of her husband Sri N.Srinivasappa. Sri N.Srinivasappa formed layout in the said land and sold Site No.6 to Mr.Sundar as per the Sale Deed dtd. 21/6/2004. Thus, there is no property as described in the plaint in Survey No.7/2. The defendant also stated that Survey No.7 is sub-divided into Survey Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/4. the plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner of a portion of Survey No.7/2, is trying to trespass over Site No.6 in Survey No.7/4. Stating that the plaintiff has approached the Court with uncleaned hands, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.