DILEEP KUMAR Vs. M.V.SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1584/2010 dtd. 2/2/2013 by the Court of the 42nd Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-43) [hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Judge'], whereby, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff.

(3.) The abridged facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration claiming that he is the absolute owner of suit property and also to declare the sale deed and rectification deed standing in the name of defendants as not binding on him and not affecting his right. He also sought for mandatory injunction to demolish the structure and put him in possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that, originally, one Late Maregowda was the owner of Sy.No.49/4 of Srigandadakaval, Yeshawanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 3 acres 8 guntas, i.e., the larger extent of suit property, formed a layout and sold sites No.9 and 10, measuring 80 x 60 feet in favour of Sri. L. Prabhakar Reddy through his GPA Holder Sri. Kunnaiah under a registered sale deed dtd. 10/10/1983. Out of these two sites Sri. L.Prabhakar Reddy sold site No.10 in favour of Smt. Vani and delivered the possession. In turn, the said Smt. Vani sold site No.10 to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dtd. 29/1/2000. Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the vacant site bearing No.10, Khaneshumari No.356/49/4, situated in Sunkadakatte Village, Srigandadakaval, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 80 feet and North to South: 60 feet (hereinafter after referred to as 'suit property') and that he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Against this backdrop, on 5/3/2010 the defendants attempted to interfere in the possession of suit property and to damage it's the compound wall. However, the plaintiff resisted the attempt and filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their henchmen from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.