JUDGMENT : 1. It is the plaintiff’s appeal. The present appellant as plaintiff has instituted suit against the original respondent Smt.Zeenathunisa herein for the relief of perpetual injunction in O.S.No.6275/2007, in the Court of learned VII Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH19), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `trial Court’). 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that she had purchased the suit schedule property, which is residential house bearing No.53 and formed in Survey No.52, Assessment No.52, measuring 50’ 30’, and situated at Laggere Village of Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now called as Chowdeshwarinagar, Bengaluru 560053, on 6.10.2003, from one Sri Gangaiah, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Jayaramachandra. Thereafter, on 1.12.2003, she constructed residential building and obtained electrical connection and other amenities to the property. The defendant had filed O.S.No.5819/2003, against one Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt. K.M.Saraswathi, for the relief of bare injunction with respect to site Nos.53 and 54, measuring 46’ 52’ and obtained an ex parte decree on 2.7.2004. It is the further contention of the plaintiff in the trial Court that the defendant Smt.Zeenathunisa had also filed one more suit in O.S.No.16818/2005, against the very same Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi, for the relief of declaration, possession and mandatory injunction in respect of both site Nos.53 and 54 and obtained an ex parte judgment and decree on 16.1.2007. According to the plaintiff, in the trial Court both those persons i.e., Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi were fictitious persons and it was collusive suit filed without impleading the plaintiff who has been in possession of the property. Finally an Execution Petition No.25074/2007 was filed before the competent Court and the defendant herein obtained delivery warrant against the judgment debtors i.e., Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi. However, on 28.7.2007, the defendant in collusion with the Court Ameen and taking the police help, approached the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and threatened them of dispossession from the suit schedule property. But, by the timely intervention of the people of that locality, the illegal act of the defendant was stopped. However, the plaintiff was taken by the Court Ameen and police to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Rajagopalanagar Police Station and there they forcibly and fraudulently took the signature of the plaintiff and her family member in blank papers without disclosing anything. However, the plaintiff was taken by the Court Ameen and police to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Rajagopalanagar Police Station and there they forcibly and fraudulently took the signature of the plaintiff and her family member in blank papers without disclosing anything. Thereafter, on 1.8.2007, the plaintiff lodged police complaint, but, the police have not taken any action against the defendant. With this the plaintiff has prayed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant, her agents, servants or anybody acting on her behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. In response to the summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her written statement, wherein she denied all the plaint averments. She contended that plaintiff cannot be the owner of the suit schedule property since the alleged General Power of Attorney Holder Smt.Jayaramachandra had no right to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. She also denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and has put up house structure thereupon. Though the defendant admitted of she instituting two suits i.e., O.S.No.5819/2003 and O.S.No.16818/2005, against Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi, but, denied that they were fictitious persons. She contended that the plaintiff has acted as the men of the said Sri Ramesh and Smt.Saraswathi and was in possession in part of the suit schedule property which was acquired by this defendant and execution part of the judgment and decree has been taken in accordance with law and as per the order of the Court. She denied that she had taken fraudulently an ex parte judgment against the said Sri Ramesh and Smt.Saraswathi. She further denied that on 28.7.2007, she in collusion with the Court Ameen and the police had threatened the plaintiff of forceful dispossession and took her signature by force and fraudulently in the police station on some blank papers. On the contrary, she contended that she has acquired the site Nos.53 and 54, measuring 46’ 52’, formed in Survey No.52 of Laggere Village, now called as Chowdeshwari Layout, Bengaluru North Taluk, through registered Sale Deed executed by it original owner on 15.3.1984 and later got the revenue records made in her name and also paying taxes to the concerned department. She is also holding katha with respect to the said properties acquired by her. She is also holding katha with respect to the said properties acquired by her. She further stated that, after acquiring the property, she kept it vacant by constructing shed of ACC sheet, measuring 15’ 12’ and enjoying without anybody’s hindrance till the filing of the suit by her as the plaintiff interfered. This made her to institute suit against them. In the meantime, the plaintiff, joined by her husband Muniyappa, by working day and night, had put up construction within the property of the defendant. Hence, the defendant was also constrained to file suit for declaration with the consequential relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the constructed portion in the defendant’s property. Thus, the suit in O.S.No.16818/2005 came to be filed. Since the said suit was decreed in her favour, she instituted an Execution Petition No.25074/2007, in which also, the judgment debtors remained ex parte in spite of notice served upon them. Therefore, the Court issued delivery warrant with police help. Accordingly, the Court Ameen in the presence and with the help of police, executed the warrant on 28.7.2007. The plaintiff along with her husband who were in possession of part of the defendant’s property had signed the mahazar drawn up with clear notice/shara to the effect that they have taken their belongings and delivered vacant possession of the schedule property for themselves and for judgment debtors. Thus, the defendant has been put in possession of the property, including the schedule property. Since then, she has been in possession of the same, as such, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues in Kannada language OTHER LANGUAGE The translation of the above issues reads as below: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that as on the date of institution of the suit, she was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has interfered in her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property? (3) What order? What decree? In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got examined one Sri Govindappa as PW2 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P28. (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has interfered in her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property? (3) What order? What decree? In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got examined one Sri Govindappa as PW2 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P28. On behalf of the defendant, her Power of Attorney Holder by name Sri Choudhary Mazharul Haq was examined as DW1 and documents from Exs.D1 to D15 were marked. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 6.8.2014, answered issue Nos.1 and in the negative and proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. It is against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 5. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 8. In view of the above, the points that arise for my consideration are (1) Whether the plaintiff has proved that as on the date of institution of the suit, she was in the lawful possession of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has interfered in her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property? (3) Whether the judgment and decree under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 9. PW1 in her examination in chief filed in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contentions taken up by her in her plaint. She contended that she purchased the suit schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 6.10.2003 from one Sri Gangaiah, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Jayaramachandra and since then, she has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and is residing in the suit schedule property along with her family members after putting up construction of house. She has also obtained electricity connection to the property. In her support, she got produced and marked original registered Sale Deed dated 6.10.2003 with respect to the suit property as at Ex.P1. She has also obtained electricity connection to the property. In her support, she got produced and marked original registered Sale Deed dated 6.10.2003 with respect to the suit property as at Ex.P1. She has produced three photographs said to be of her residential house along with negatives at Exs.P2 to P5. She also produced electricity bills to show electricity connection taken to the suit property and got them marked at Exs.P6 to P9. She produced certified copy of the Execution Petition No.25074/2007 at Ex.P10 and certified copy of the application and affidavit filed by Smt.Zeenathunnisa, seeking the police protection in the above Execution Petition at Ex.P11. She produced certified copy of the mahazar drawn by the Court Bailiff on 16.6.2007 at Ex.P12. certified copy of the delivery warrant issued under Order XXI Rule 35 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `CPC’), in the above Execution Petition was marked at Ex.P13. certified copy of the delivery warrant issued on 13.8.2003 along with the report of the Bailiff was marked at Ex.P14. certified copy of the mahazar dated 28.7.2007, drawn by the Court Bailiff was marked at Ex.P15. The certified copy of the order sheet in Execution Petition No.25074/2007 was marked at Ex.P16. She further produced three photographs with negatives from Exs.P17 to P19(a). Another set of three photographs at Exs.P20 to P22 and Compact Disc at Ex.P23. She produced two tax paid receipts at Exs.P24 and P25. An acknowledgement said to have been issued by jurisdictional police acknowledging the complaint said to have been lodged by her against one Chowdhari was produced and marked at Ex.P26. Subsequently, she also produced certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 12.5.2008 and an Encumbrance Certificate and got them marked at Exs.P27 and P28. PW1 further contended in her evidence that on 28.7.2007, the defendant in collusion with the Court Ameen and with the help of the police have approached near the suit property and threatened her of dispossessing her from the suit schedule property. But, by the timely intervention of the people of that locality, the illegal act of the defendant was stopped. However, the plaintiff was taken by the Court Ameen and police to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Rajagopalanagar Police Station and there they took the signature of the plaintiff on several of the blank papers by force and by fraud. But, by the timely intervention of the people of that locality, the illegal act of the defendant was stopped. However, the plaintiff was taken by the Court Ameen and police to the jurisdictional police station i.e., Rajagopalanagar Police Station and there they took the signature of the plaintiff on several of the blank papers by force and by fraud. On the said papers Court Ameen wrote that they have already handed over the possession. 10. The plaintiff also got examined one Sri Govindappa as PW2, who in his examination in chief has stated that he know the plaintiff and he is resident in the locality since twenty years where the suit schedule property is located. He has stated that the plaintiff had been in the lawful possession of the suit schedule property. However, on 28.7.2007, the defendant along with Court Ameen and police approached the plaintiff near the suit schedule property and threatened her of dispossessing, but, by the timely intervention of the people of that locality, the illegal act of the defendant was stopped. However, the Court Ameen and police took them to the jurisdictional Rajagopalanagar Police Station, where by force and fraud, the signatures of the plaintiff and her husband were taken on blank papers without disclosing anything. He also stated that though the plaintiff lodged complaint with the police on 1.8.2007, but the police did not take any action in the matter. The witness was subjected to detailed cross examination from the defendant’s side, wherein he adhered to his original version. 11. DW1 in his examination in chief filed in the form of affidavit evidence, as Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant, has reiterated the summary of the contentions taken up by the defendant in her written statement. He has stated that the defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule property as the owner thereof. Since there was interference by one Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi in their lawful possession, the defendant herein instituted suit for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction in O.S.No.16818/2005, on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which came to be decreed in favour of the defendant. As such, by filing an Execution Petition No.25074/2007 and obtaining delivery warrant, the Court officials delivered possession of the portion of the suit schedule property. As such, it is the defendant who was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. As such, by filing an Execution Petition No.25074/2007 and obtaining delivery warrant, the Court officials delivered possession of the portion of the suit schedule property. As such, it is the defendant who was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. In support of his contention, the defendant got produced and marked photograph at Ex.D1, his Power of Attorney at Ex.D2, copy of the Agreement dated 15.3.1984 at Ex.D3, General Power of Attorney dated 22.3.1984 at Ex.D4, an affidavit said to have been executed by Sri Gangaiah on 21.3.1984 at Ex.D5, police endorsement of Rajagopalanagar Police Station at Ex.D6. He has also produced copy of the complaint lodged with the Rajagopalanagar Police on 11.8.2003 at Ex.D7, certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5819/2003 at Ex.D8, certified copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.16818/2005 at Ex.D9, certified copy of the order sheet in Execution Petition No.25074/2007 at Ex.D10, two tax paid receipts at Exs.D11 and D12, NIL Encumbrance Certificate at Ex.D13, Form No.111, for the year 20032004 at Ex.D14 and nine photographs with negatives at Ex.D15. In his cross examination, the witness adhered to his original version. 12. In the light of the above, it was the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property, whereas, the defendant is only an agreement holder. The alleged dispossession of the plaintiff is only on paper, but, in fact, she has been in possession of the suit schedule property. He further submitted that the signature of the plaintiff and her husband was forcibly taken by the defendant and the Court Ameen in the jurisdictional Police Station, upon which, they have prepared mahazar. He further submitted that electricity bills show the name of the plaintiff as the one who is in possession of the property. He further submitted that O.S.No.5819/2003 and O.S.No.16818/2005 were against fictitious persons and the plaintiff was not party therein. He also submitted that the General Power of Attorney at Ex.D4 is with respect to site No.54, but, not with respect to the suit schedule property. He further submitted that the tax paid receipts at Exs.D11 and D12 are tampered documents. The defendant has inserted the suit schedule property number in those two tax paid receipts and has tampered them. He also submitted that the General Power of Attorney at Ex.D4 is with respect to site No.54, but, not with respect to the suit schedule property. He further submitted that the tax paid receipts at Exs.D11 and D12 are tampered documents. The defendant has inserted the suit schedule property number in those two tax paid receipts and has tampered them. Learned counsel submitted that however the trial Court without noticing these aspects has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to be decreed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent in his argument submitted that the respondent/defendant being the purchaser of the suit schedule property, is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit by the plaintiff. The defendant has taken the possession of the suit schedule property in Execution Petition No.25074/2007 in manner known to law and the plaintiff has also put her signature in the mahazar drawn by the Court Ameen while delivering the possession of the property to the defendant. Learned counsel further submitted that when the plaintiff has made allegation against the Court Ameen, she has not taken any action against the said Court Ameen. She has also not examined the Bailiff/Ameen in the Court. 14. The plaintiff in order to show that she is the purchaser of the suit schedule property and has been in possession thereof, has produced the original registered Sale Deed at Ex.P1, which says that, she purchased the suit schedule property under registered Sale Deed for valuable consideration on 6.10.2003 from one Sri Gangaiah through his General Power of Attorney Holder Smt. Jayaramachandra. However, she has not produced the said General Power of Attorney or its copy said to have been executed by the vendor Gangaiah in favour of Smt. Jayaramachandra. The photographs at Exs.P2 to P4 are stated to be the photographs of the suit schedule property, however, by mere photographs itself it cannot be concluded that as on the date of the institution of the suit, it was the plaintiff who was in possession of the suit schedule property. 15. The plaintiff has also produced electricity bills at Exs.P6 to P9, which shows that with respect to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has obtained an electrical connection and has been paying the electricity bills. 15. The plaintiff has also produced electricity bills at Exs.P6 to P9, which shows that with respect to the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has obtained an electrical connection and has been paying the electricity bills. However, those electricity bills are for the period much prior to the date of institution of the suit. Even assuming for a moment that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property for the period that is shown in the electricity bills, which includes latest bill of May 2007, but, even according to the defendant, the possession of the suit schedule property was taken in lawful procedure by the defendant by executing Court decree on 28.07.2007. Admittedly, the present suit is filed on 8.8.2007. Therefore, none of the documents produced by the plaintiff would go to show that, as on the date of institution of the suit i.e., on 8.8.2007, she was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. 16. On the other hand, the documents produced by the plaintiff herself at Ex.P10 and Exs.P11 to P16 would go to show that the present defendant as decree holder in O.S.No.16818/2005, executed the decree for possession of the suit schedule property against the judgment debtors i.e., one Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi and getting the Executing Court order for delivery warrant with police help, executed the said warrant on 28.7.2007, whereunder the Ameen of the Court with the help of the police executed the warrant and delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant by drawing mahazar to the said effect as per Ex.P15. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff, as well PW2 that it was only an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff that was made on 28.7.2007, however, the said attempt was stopped by the timely intervention of the people of that locality, proved to be false by Ex. P 15. In that regard, when the certified copy of delivery warrant at Ex.P14 was confronted to PW1, she has admitted her signature and also her husband Sri Muniyappa in the said delivery warrant. However, she denied that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of execution of the delivery warrant. She also denied the photograph at Ex.D1 which also of the same house as in Exs.P2 to P5. 17. However, she denied that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of execution of the delivery warrant. She also denied the photograph at Ex.D1 which also of the same house as in Exs.P2 to P5. 17. From the said evidence of PW1, more particularly the cross examination, it clearly go to show that the delivery warrant came to be executed on 28.7.2007, on which day, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property and vacant possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the defendant in Execution Petition No.25074/2007. Even PW2 in his cross examination also has stated that on the date of execution of the delivery warrant, he too was present in the spot when galata took place and on that day, the plaintiff Rathnamma has signed the mahazar and other documents near the disputed property. However, the witness has stated that giving threat to her, the signature of Rathnamma was taken. But, the fact remains that, Rathnamma has signed the mahazar and other documents relating to execution of the warrant. According to PW1, she had signed only few blank papers in Rajagopalanagar Police Station, whereas, her own witness i.e., PW2 says that she has signed the mahazar near the disputed property itself. Thus, the evidence of PW1 to the effect that she has signed in police station, that too, upon blank papers is proved to be false by her own witness, who is PW2. Thus, the fact remains that on 28.7.2007, the defendant took the possession of the suit schedule property in manner known to law. As such, the stray admission of DW1 made in his cross examination that at the time of institution of the suit and prior to that the plaintiff was living in the house at Ex.P3, does not carry any importance and does not lead this Court to believe that plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. Further DW1 while making such an admission has not stated as on the date of institution of which suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, there being three suits pertaining to the suit schedule property i.e., O.S.No.5819/2003, O.S.No.16818/2005 and the present suit i.e., O.S.No.6275/2007. It cannot be made out as to with reference to which particular suit, DW1 has made such an admission. 18. Admittedly, there being three suits pertaining to the suit schedule property i.e., O.S.No.5819/2003, O.S.No.16818/2005 and the present suit i.e., O.S.No.6275/2007. It cannot be made out as to with reference to which particular suit, DW1 has made such an admission. 18. It is the contention of the plaintiff through out that she was forcibly dispossessed with the help of the police by the Court Ameen, who was colluded with the defendant, as such, on 28.7.2007, by force the household articles were thrown out, which is shown in photographs at Ex.P17 and Ex.P19. No doubt, in neither of the suits i.e., in O.S.No.5819/2003 and O.S.No.16818/2005, the present plaintiff was party. However, nothing had prevented the plaintiff to resist/obstruct her alleged dispossession by making necessary applications before the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. Admittedly, the present plaintiff has not taken any steps in that regard. Further, when the plaintiff complains that there was collusion between the Court Ameen and the defendant in executing the said delivery warrant, then, the plaintiff herein was required to take appropriate action against the Court Ameen. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not even lodged complaint before the employer of the said Court Ameen alleging his alleged collusion with the decree holder therein. Had really the plaintiff been taken to local police station and her signatures were obtained by threat and force in the police station, the plaintiff was expected to lodge complaint, at least, before the higher police authorities. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not done the same. 19. Thus, the fact remains that, as on the date of institution of this suit i.e., on 8.8.2007, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property and that the defendant through an execution of delivery warrant in Execution Petition No.25074/2007, was given with the possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff’s contention that she was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the institution of the suit was rightly not accepted by the Court below. 20. Further, the plaintiff has also not able to establish that there was any unlawful interference in her alleged possession of the suit schedule property. The alleged interference which is said to have been taken on 28.7.2007, as already observed above, was in the form of execution of delivery warrant in manner known to law. 20. Further, the plaintiff has also not able to establish that there was any unlawful interference in her alleged possession of the suit schedule property. The alleged interference which is said to have been taken on 28.7.2007, as already observed above, was in the form of execution of delivery warrant in manner known to law. The same was subsequent to an order passed in Execution Petition No.25074/2007, as could be seen in Ex.P13 and Ex.P16. As such, the said act of executing the delivery warrant cannot be considered as an act of interference warranting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the trial Court has rightly answered both issue Nos.1 and in the negative do not find any reason to interfere in the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 21. Accordingly, proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 6.8.2014, passed by the learned VII Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH19), in O.S.No.6275/2007, is confirmed. The Registry is directed to transmit copy of this judgment along with lower Court records to the Trial Court without delay.