1 OS 468/2020

KAMD210016642020

Presented on : 07-12-2020
Registered on : 15-12-2020
Decided on : 12-12-2024
Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 5 days

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C,

KRISHNRAJAPETE

Present: SMT. ARPITHA K.V.,

B.A. LL.B., LL.M.
II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C.,
KRISHNARAJAPETE.

O.S.No.468/2020

DATED THIS THE 12h DAY OF DECEMBER - 2024

Plaintiff :- Bhagya
W/o Yogeshgowda
Aged about 50 years
R/o Malaguru village,
Santhebachahalli Hobli,
K.R.Pete Taluk,
Mandya District.

(Rep. by Sri.D.N., Adv.)

Vs.

Defendants:- 1. Muddegowda,
S/o Late Ningegowda
Aged about 55 years

2. Jayanna
S/o Bojappa,
Aged about 40 years,
 2 OS 468/2020

Both are R/o Malaguru village,

Santhebachahalli Hobli,
K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District.

( By Sri.T.L. Adv., for D2)

(D1-Exparte )

Date of Institution of the suit 07.12.2020

Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement of
29.10.2024
recording of the evidence
Date of which the Judgment
12.12.2024
was pronounced
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration
04 00 05

(Smt. Arpitha K.V.,)

II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
K.R.Pete.

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff has instituted the present suit for relief of

Permanent Injunction against the defendants.

Schedule properties

1. Suit property bearing 161/5A, measuring

0.14 guntas, situated at Malaguru village,
Santhebachahalli Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya
District, bounded on East by: Government Halla,
West by: Land belonging Jayanna (Defendant No.2),
 3 OS 468/2020

North by: Government dam, South by: Land

belonging to Muddegowda (Defendant No.1’s land)

2. Suit property bearing 161/3A, measuring

0.27 guntas, situated at Malaguru village,
Santhebachahalli Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya
District, bounded on East by: Land belonging to
Kenchappana Ramanna brothers land and Halla,
West by: Government gomala and road, North by:
Land belonging to Boregowda, South by: Land
belonging to Kenchappana Ramannana brothers
land.

3. Suit property bearing 165/2 measuring 0.04

guntas, situated at Malaguru village,
Santhebachahalli Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya
District, bounded on East by: Land belonging to
Boregowda, West by: Lane, North by: Land belonging
to Jayamma, South by: Land belonging to
Amaserudraiah and Ramesha.

2. The Brief facts of the Plaintiff’s case is that;

The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule properties. Though the defendants are well
aware of the said fact, have been interfering with the
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule properties. Though the plaintiff requested the
defendants several time to not to interfere with the peaceful
 4 OS 468/2020

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties,

have ignored the request of the plaintiff.

3. The defendants in order to make illegal gain out of the

plaintiff suit properties, have been interfering with the
plaintiffs peaceful possession over the suit properties.
Though the defendants were advised by the panchayath
members, the defendants have ignored the same and have
continued their act of interference. Henceforth the plaintiff
was constrained to come up with the present suit.

4. Upon service of summons the Defendant No.1 has not

appeared before the court and hence was placed exparte.
Defendant No.2 has appeared before the court, but has not
filed any written statement.

5. In order to prove the case of Plaintiff, the plaintiff

herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents,
as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Since no evidence was adduced from
other side the matter was posted for arguments.

6. On perusal of the materials placed on record,following

points arise for consideration of this court:
Point No.1: Whether the Plaintiff proves
that she is in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property as
on the date of suit?
Point No.2: Whether the Plaintiff proves the
interference made by the defendants as
alleged in the plaint?
 5 OS 468/2020

Point No.3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled

for the relief of permanent injunction as
sought in the plaint?

Point No.4: What order or decree?

7. On considering the materials placed on record this

court answers aforesaid Points as hereunder :

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative

Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : As per order for the
following:

REASONS

8. Point No.1 : The Plaintiff has instituted the present

suit for relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants.
Since the facts are already stated, the same is avoided.

9. As per sections 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence

Act the burden to prove the possession and interference lies
on the Plaintiff. Since this suit is one for Permanent
injunction with respect to the suit schedule property, Plaintiff
is required to prove her actual and lawful possession over the
suit schedule properties as on the date of suit and even she is
expected to prove alleged interference by the Defendants.

10. The Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 by filing

affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Ex.P1
 6 OS 468/2020

to Ex.P11. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the Computerized RTCs, Ex.P4

is the Mutation Register Extract, Ex.P5 is the Legal notice.
ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the Postal receipts. Ex.P8 is the unserved
postal cover and Ex.P8(a) is the unserved legal notice. Ex.P9
is the Akar band, Ex.P10 is the Certified copy of Index of
land, Ex.P11 is the certified copy of Record of rights.

11. The plaintiff claims that she is in the possession of

the suit schedule property. Accordingly on perusal of Ex.P1 to
Ex.P3 it can be said that the suit schedule properties are
standing in the name of the plaintiff and accordingly has
produced Mutation Register extract, Index of land and record
of rights which are marked at Ex.P4, Ex.P10 and Ex.P11.
Henceforth it can be observed clear that plaintiff is in
possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of
suit. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.

12. Point No. 2 : PW1 clearly deposes that she is in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and
defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule
properties but are interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful
possession over the suit schedule properties. There is no
rebutal evidence to disbelieve the version of plaintiff.

13. In the decision reported in 2014 (1) KCCR

391(Smt.Narasamma and others Vs D.S Narasi Reddy and
another) In which the Hon'ble High of Karnataka held that,
“where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff’s lawful
 7 OS 468/2020

possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for

an injunction”. The above decision is aptly applicable to the
case in hand and the plaintiff has proved that she is in the
possession of the suit schedule properties and further proved
the interference made by the defendants. Accordingly, this
court answers Point No.2 in the Affirmative.

14. Point No.3: Upon Perusal of materials placed on

record and evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, it is proved that
the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit
schedule properties as on the date of the institution of the
suit and further proved the alleged interference by the
Defendants over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the
Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction. In
lieu of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that
the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for. Accordingly,
Point No.3 is answered in the Affirmative.

15. Point No.4: From the above made observation this

court proceeds to pass the following:-

ORDER

The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby Decreed with

cost.

Consequently, the Defendants and there

agents are hereby permanently restrained from
 8 OS 468/2020

interfering with the Plaintiff’s Peaceful possession

and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.

Draw decree accordingly.

(This Judgment is dictated to the stenographer directly computerized by him,

corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on 12th December 2024)

(Smt. Arpitha K.V.,)

II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
K.R.Pete.

ANNEXURES

List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:

PW.1 : Bhagya

List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff :

Ex.P.1 to 3: Computerized RTCs

Ex.P.4 : Mutation Register extract
Ex.P.5 : Legal notice
Ex.P.6 & 7: Postal receipts
Ex.P.8 : Unserved Postal cover
Ex.P.8(a) : Unserved legal notice
Ex.P.9 : Akarband
Ex.P.10 : Index of land
Ex.P.11 : Record of rights
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:-

- NIL-

4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of Defendants:-

- NIL-

(Smt. Arpitha K.V.,)

II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
K.R.Pete.
 9 OS 468/2020

Judgment pronounced in the open

court vide separate order
ORDER

The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby Decreed with

cost.

Consequently, the Defendants and there

agents are hereby permanently restrained from
interfering with the Plaintiff’s Peaceful possession
and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Smt. Arpitha K.V.,)

II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
K.R.Pete.