CHANDRI CHANDRAN W/O MR. P.K. CHANDRAN Vs. CHIKKANNA S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by fee unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.365/04 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Bangalore Rural District, is against the concurrent judgment of the courts below, dismissing the suit filed by her for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the two vacant sites bearing Nos.8 and 9 stated to have been carved out in Sy.No.11/2 of Hosahalli Gollarepalya village, Yeshwanthapura hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East -West 53 ft, North -South 60 ft.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in brief was that, she purchased the suit schedule properly on 30.05.1983 through G.P.A., and subsequently got it registered on 04.12.2000 for valuable consideration and thus she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property; that the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the property, trespassed on to the schedule property on 17.03.2004 and removed the stone pillars, barbed wires and built a small katcha shed without any occupants living in the shed; that in this connection, plaintiff lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 18.03.2004 and the police called the defendants, held enquiry and instructed the defendants not to interfere with the affairs of the said suit schedule property, thereafter, the defendant absconded; that thus, the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; that as, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the property, she is entitled to protect her possession.

(3.) PARTIES led their evidence in support of their contentions. The trial Court on assessment of oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding that even from the very averment made in the plaint, the plaintiff is shown to be not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the data of the suit and the documentary evidence placed on record indicated that the land bearing Sy.No.11/2 is the ancestral property of the defendants, as such the defendants are the joint owners of the suit, schedule property, therefore an order of injunction cannot be issued against co -owners, Consequently the trial Court dismissed the suit. The said judgment of the trial Court came to be affirmed by the lower appellate Court in appeal filed toy the appellant -plaintiff. It is against these concurrent judgment of the courts below the appellant is before this Court.