S. Abdul Nazeer, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 168/2006 dated 9.7.2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.)., JMFC, Devanahalli.
(2.) J . Krishnaiah Setty, the respondent herein had filed O.S. No. 13/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Devanahalli for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, representatives, henchmen, supporters and anybody acting on his behalf from interfering or meddling with the suit schedule property in any manner or disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. The suit was filed against Sri Somasundaram. The suit schedule property measures 75 ft. x 40 ft. bearing katha No. 23, Khaneshumari No. 98, situated at Sadahalli Gramatana, Kasaba Hobli, Kannamangala Village Panchayath, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District consisting of a small building bounded on the east by plaintiff's shop, west by vendor's site, north by road and south by road and vendor's site. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the father of defendant through a registered sale deed dated 25.8.1981 and he was put in possession of the said property on the date of sale deed. Katha was mutated in his name and he has been paying tax regularly to the Panchayath. After obtaining licence from the Panchayath, he constructed a small building in a portion of the suit schedule property and there is also an oil extracting unit (gana) in the suit schedule property run by him. On 17.12.2000, the defendant made hectic attempts to trespass into the suit schedule property and to interfere with his possession. He filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police, who refused to register the case on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature. Therefore, he has filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. The defendant filed his written statement contending that his father had sold land measuring 25 ft. x 40 ft. in favour of the plaintiff and not 75 ft. x 40 ft. under the registered sale deed dated 25.8.1981 and retained the remaining land in the same katha number. The plaintiff taking undue advantage of the words written in Kannada language altered to in the original sale deed. Basing on the altered document, the Panchayath issued katha in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant filed objections before the Kannamangala Panchayath on 8.11.2000. The Village Accountant after perusing the original records, cancelled the katha, which was transferred in favour of the plaintiff and issued a letter dated 11.12.2000 to that effect. The encumbrance certificate also shows that plaintiff has purchased only 25 ft. x 40 ft. and not 75 ft. x 40 ft. The plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing true facts and therefore is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: "(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? (4) What order or decree -;