Sharma, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave has been filed by the defendant in a suit for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents over five acres of land in the Bangalore City. The disputed area was acquired for using it as a burial ground in 1927-28 under G.O. No. 4888 and, according to the case of the appellant, compensation was paid out of the Municipal funds and the land has been in its possession since then. According to the plaintiff respondents, the aforementioned G.O. was cancelled and the land was settled with Guttahalli Hanumaiah in 1929 under G.O. No. 3540, which, however, has not been produced in the case. Guttahalli Hanumaiah remained in possession till 1937 when he died. After his death his widow the plaintiff No. 2 came in possession and continued till 1969 when an area of 2.02 acres was sold to the plaintiff No. 1. In 1970 there was an agreement of sale by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 for the sale of the remaining land also for a total sum of Rs. 20,000/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- is said to have been paid. On 8-8-1973 the plaintiff got his name entered in the revenue records. On the 3rd of September, 1973 the present suit was filed stating that cause of action arose on 24-8-1973 when a function was held at the instance of the appellant Corporation laying down the foundation stone of a building of a proposed school on the disputed area.
(2.) The appellant denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted its continuous possession since 1927 and also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as the relief claimed was limited to permanent injunction without asking for a decree to declare the plaintiffs' title.
(3.) The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal by the appellant, the first appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit holding that the appellant has been in continuous possession. The suit was also held to be not maintainable. The plaintiffs challenged the decision by a regular second appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment the second appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was restored.;