ANANDAMMA Vs. N. LEELA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 495/2010, assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in dismissing her suit brought for the relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property measuring 1 1/4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 423/4 from one Rajalakshmi under a registered sale deed dated 15/2/1993. The defendant, in his written statement as well as in the evidence, has admitted that the said Rajalakshmi is the original owner of the suit survey number. In spite of that, the courts below have committed an error in holding that there is a cloud with regard to the title of the suit property and erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. He submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are contrary to the material evidence on record. He submits that when title of the suit property is not in dispute, the suit for bare injunction is maintainable and therefore, there is substantial question of law that arises in the appeal, which needs to be considered and answered in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, he has prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and grant the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(3.) It is an admitted case of the plaintiff that 23 1/2 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 422 and 423/4 of Hassan Village Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk, originally belonged to one H.V. Rajalakshmi. Out of said 23 1/2 guntas of land in Sy. No. 423/4, 1 1/4 guntas of land was sold in favour of the appellant/plaintiff under sale deed dated 15/2/1993. As the boundary to the sale deed was wrongly mentioned, the vendor Rajalakshma had executed a rectification deed dated 3/3/1998 in favour of the plaintiff. After purchasing the suit property, the khatha of the suit property was changed in her name and she has been paying the tax to the concerned authorities. She has obtained the commencement certificate from HUDA on 28/1/1998 and also obtained the licence and sketch and she has put up construction upto the plinth level in the suit property. She is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 15/2/1993. That being so, about three days prior to the filing of the suit, defendant came near the suit property and caused obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, she was constrained to file the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.