- (1.)THIS regular second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagamangala, thereby allowing R.A.No.20/2008 filed by the defendants ­ respondents herein modifying the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge.
(2.)THE plaintiff ­ appellant herein filed O.S.No.44/2005 seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It was contended by the plaintiff that the land was granted to him by the Government and that he had dug up a borewell and installed a pump set from which he was irrigating the suit schedule land.
The defendants resisted the suit contending interalia that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule of the suit property were not correct and that the borewell in question was in existence in their land. The defendants also traced their title to the grant made by the Government in their favour of the land bearing Sy.No.65/A measuring 1 acre 22 guntas.

(3.)THE Trial Court framed necessary issues with regard to the proof by the plaintiff of his possession over the suit property and the alleged interference by the defendants. Both parties led in their evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record, particularly the RTC extracts, electricity bills and the report of the Borewell Agency and other documents and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff was successful in establishing his actual possession over the suit property and hence, he was entitled for a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.