- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High court allowing the First Appeal filed by the respondents under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC').
(3.) The factual background needs to be noted in brief: The appeal before the High Court was by the plaintiffs who are respondents in the present appeal. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the wife and husband. According to the plaintiffs, the Ist plaintiff purchased site no.43 in survey No.37 of Avalahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 45' and North to South 30' and bounded on East by 5th Main Road, on the West by Site No.46, on the North by Site No.42 and on the South by Site No.44. According to them, the 2nd defendant (respondent No.3 herein) sold the property as power of attorney holder of one Narayana Rao in favour of the Ist plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 7.6.1984. At the time of purchase, a temporary structure was there on the property and with an intention to construct a new building, they pulled down the temporary structure. When the plaintiffs started demolishing the said structure, the Ist defendant (appellant herein) made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that under the guise of purchasing of a site No.42, the Ist defendant also made an attempt to encroach on the plaintiffs property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for judgment and decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Ist defendant filed the written statement contending that he has purchased the property from one Nagaraja who is the 3rd defendant and that the Ist defendant is in possession of site No.42 which is measuring 45' x 60'. Therefore, he requested to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant has supported the case of the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant has not filed any written statement. According to the Ist defendant the 3rd defendant is the owner of the property. Based on the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing the suit (ii) Whether the illegal interference is proved (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed - The 2nd plaintiff has been examined as PW-1. The 2nd defendant-vendor of the Ist plaintiff has been examined as PW- 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the defendants, the Ist defendant has been examined as DW-1. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Against the said judgment and decree, the First Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. It is to be noted that the High Court formulated the following point for determination in appeal: "Whether the Ist plaintiff proved that the 2nd defendant had the power to alienate site No.43 in her favour, and if so, is she entitled for a decree in her favour - The High Court allowed the appeal holding that plaintiff No.1 had proved her case in respect of Site No.43 in view of Exs. P-1 and P-2. Adverse inference was drawn because the defendant No.1 failed to produce the power of Attorney executed by Narayana Rao in favour of 3rd defendant.;