Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 218 (KAR)

S. Sampoornamma v. Jayamma

2023-02-03

H.P.SANDESH

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. This regular second appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of C.P.C. praying this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur in R.A.No.12/2011 dtd. 5/6/2017 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Maddur in O.S.No.4/2008 dtd. 24/2/2011. 3. The parties are referred to in the original ranking before the Trial Court as defendants and plaintiff, in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while filing the suit for permanent injunction is that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property which originally belongs to her father Hosabore Hegde and the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff demised leaving behind the plaintiff, who is the daughter and his only son Revanna. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, the brother of the plaintiff Revanna being a sole male member of the family inherited the landed property to an extent of 1 acre, 8 guntas in suit Survey No.1017/1. All the revenue entries were mutated in his name. In fact, the brother of the plaintiff died intestate in an unmarried status. During his life time, he sold 8 guntas of land in the suit survey number to one K. Thimmaiah and also 6 guntas of land in favour of the first defendant herein. The plaintiff being his own legal representative, has succeeded to his estate in respect of the remaining land. Thus, she became absolute owner and all the revenue entries were mutated in her name with respect to suit schedule property and she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and cultivating the same by raising sugarcane and mulberry and rearing silk worms. There are 15 coconut trees, 8 baniyan trees, 8 neem trees, 2 mango trees and other trees in the suit schedule property. 5. There are 15 coconut trees, 8 baniyan trees, 8 neem trees, 2 mango trees and other trees in the suit schedule property. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants, without having any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, they have always causing unnecessary harassment to the enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. That on 30/12/2007, the defendants colluded together and came near the plaintiff's suit schedule property along with their henchmen and made unsuccessful and unlawful attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the same has been resisted by the plaintiff. The defendants openly proclaimed that they will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit. 6. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants entered appearance through their counsels and filed written statement and contended that Old Sy.No.864/1 measured and mapped and pacca phoded and new survey number assigned as 1017/1. Out of 1.8 acres, about 10 guntas of land has been utilized for the purpose of channel. After formation of the channel, the remaining 38 guntas became two pieces because the channel is formed in the middle of 1.8 guntas. Out of 38 guntas, 30 guntas lies towards northern side and 8 guntas lies towards southern side and the father of the plaintiff had sold northern portion of entire land in old Sy.No.864/1 in favour of the father of the second defendant and put his father in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that, at the time of selling the land, though the extent was mentioned as 24 guntas, put the boundary to the entire land and the entire land was transferred and his father was put in possession of the entire land as on the date of sale. Accordingly, the father of the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of entire northern portion till his death and since the old survey number was mentioned in the sale deed, mutation was accepted in the name of the second defendant to the old survey number and all the revenue entries are entered in the name of the father of second defendant. After the death of the father of the second defendant, khatha of the said land has been transferred in the name of the first defendant. After the death of the father of the second defendant, khatha of the said land has been transferred in the name of the first defendant. 7. In the year 2004-05, Survey Department has measured the lands of Athagur Hobli and at that time, it was found that the land sold to the father of the second defendant is measuring 30 guntas within the boundary even though extent is mentioned as 24 guntas in the sale deed. Considering the more extent, the brother of the plaintiff by name Revenna, who was the sole surviving coparcener executed a sale deed with respect to 6 guntas of land in favour of the first defendant. As per law, the entire land was transferred in the year 1969 itself but, the extent was wrongly mentioned. The piece of land measuring 8 guntas which lies towards south of Nala was sold by the brother of the plaintiff in the year 2004. But, while executing the sale deed for second time, new survey number was mentioned. At the time of execution of the second sale deed, the extent mentioned in the earlier sale deed has not been deducted. In fact, the said Revanna has not at all retained any land, much less the suit land either in new survey number or old survey number. The said Revanna had land in another survey number towards western side of the old Sy.No.864. Even after giving new survey number, that has not been incorporated in the name of the first defendant by the Revenue Department. Hence, the RTC is entered in the new survey number and continued in the old survey number also. Now, the plaintiff by misutilizing the wrong RTC, has filed this false and baseless suit. In fact, neither the plaintiff's father nor Revanna were in possession of entire 30 guntas of land after 1969. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and there is no land in existence as described in the plaint schedule. Since the second defendant and his wife are in possession of land in Sy.No.1017/1, old Sy.No.864, the question of interference does not arise. 8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed four issues for its consideration. The plaintiff, in order to prove the case, examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. 8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed four issues for its consideration. The plaintiff, in order to prove the case, examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the defendants have examined the second defendant as D.W.1 and another witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D7. 9. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and granted the decree. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants have filed the appeal in R.A.No.12/2011, wherein the grounds urged by the appellants- defendants is that the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit of the respondent even though the respondent has miserably failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property and on the other hand, the appellants have proved their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. The learned Judge has not at all understood the case of the parties and crux of the case and not at all read the pleadings of the parties properly, which leads to decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge also not at all considered the hard and admitted facts and not properly read the report of the Commissioner, who has been appointed and submitted the report and the same is not disputed by either of the parties. The learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that right from 1969 to till date, the RTC to the land measuring 24 guntas stands in the name of the appellants. Inspite of it, the Trial Court held that these appellants have not challenged the revenue records. The appellants have clearly established and rebutted the presumption by proving before the Trial Court. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 11. Inspite of it, the Trial Court held that these appellants have not challenged the revenue records. The appellants have clearly established and rebutted the presumption by proving before the Trial Court. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 11. The First Appellate Court, having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated four points for consideration, whether the Trial Court erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse and capricious and whether it requires interference. In the appeal, an application was also filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. by the defendants seeking to produce additional evidence and hence, the points were also framed. On re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and while answering point No.3 with regard to production of additional evidence is concerned, the Trial Court observed that the revenue records were prepared on 12/12/2014 and mutation has been effected on 30/4/2015 and RTC extract pertaining to R.S.No.930/1 for the year 2014-15 is standing in the name of the defendants. Based on these documents, it is contended that the respondent-plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and comes to the conclusion that the petition is also pending before the Tahsildar with regard to the revenue records which have been produced before the Court and the same has not yet reached its finality and its correctness and legality is yet to be adjudicated. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that these documents do not meet the conditions precedent stipulated under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. and rejected the application. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 12. The main grounds urged in the second appeal is that the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is perverse and ought to have dismissed the suit. It is contended that the father of the plaintiff had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the father of the first defendant which is evident from Ex.D1 and suppressing the said fact, the suit had been filed. The very contentions of the defendants was that old Sy.No.864/1 have been re-numbered as Sy.No.1017/1 and the said contention is fortified by Ex.D7 and the report of the Court Commissioner. The very contentions of the defendants was that old Sy.No.864/1 have been re-numbered as Sy.No.1017/1 and the said contention is fortified by Ex.D7 and the report of the Court Commissioner. But the same has not been appreciated by the Courts below. It is further contended that the Court Commissioner in his report had clearly identified the property that had been sold in favour of the father of the second defendant. He had also observed that, Sy.No.864/1 referred to in the said sale deed bears the new Sy.No.1017. The sketch of Sy.No.1017/1 have also been drawn by him which corroborates with the defence of the defendants. As could be seen from the sketch, a Nala bifurcates the land in Sy.No.1017/1. The southern portion is sold to Thimmaiah which measures 8 guntas and northern portion in favour of the father of the second defendant. However, the said aspect has been appreciated by the Courts below, but the First Appellate Court, in a cryptic manner upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and did not consider the various contentions urged by the appellants-defendants in the appeal and the evidence of P.W.1 has not been appreciated by both the Courts below, wherein she has given admission regarding assigning of new survey number. The counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts below committed an error in holding that the suit schedule property had already been sold in favour of the father of the second defendant by the father of plaintiff in terms of Ex.D1 and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. 13. This Court, while admitting the second appeal, framed the substantial question of law, whether the undisputed sale in favour of the father of the appellant No.2 under the sale deeds dtd. 8/6/1969 and 4/4/2006 was material evidence along with the Commissioner's report and whether the Courts below have erred in over-looking this evidence in decreeing the suit. 14. This Court has secured the records of the Trial Court and in the meanwhile, the appellants have also filed paper book as directed by this Court and I have heard the respective counsels on record. 15. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the land in question is an agricultural land and the same is not in dispute. 15. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the land in question is an agricultural land and the same is not in dispute. The respondent- plaintiff sought for the relief of permanent injunction to the extent of 27 guntas of land. The boundaries are given in the plaint with regard to 27 guntas of land which is situate at Kesthur Village, Athagur Hobli, Maddur Taluk bearing Sy.No.1017/1 which is bounded on the East by the land of Chikkonu, West by the land of first defendant and Krishna, North by Government Halla and South by Nala which leads to Kesthur tank. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants would vehemently contend that, out of total 1 acre, 8 guntas of land, no dispute with regard to the fact that 6 guntas of land was sold in favour of the first defendant and 8 guntas of land was sold in favour of Thimmaiah and in total, 14 guntas of land was sold and claim that the remaining land belongs to the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that the land measuring 1 acre, 8 guntas originally belongs to the father of the plaintiff. It is contended that the father of the plaintiff had sold 24 guntas of land vide sale deed dtd. 8/6/1969 in favour of the father of the second defendant and while executing the sale deed, boundary is mentioned to the extent of 30 guntas. Hence, the sale deed was executed to the extent of 6 guntas in favour of the first defendant and in total, 30 guntas of land was sold in favour of the defendants. 17. The counsel would vehemently contend that, old survey number is 864/1 and new survey number is 1017/1. The counsel would further contend that 10 guntas of land was taken for formation of Nala and the same runs in the middle of the entire land of 1 acre, 8 guntas. The counsel also would contend that the Court Commissioner has been appointed and he has given the report stating that, 10 guntas had gone for Nala and suit schedule property is assigned with new Sy.No.1017/1. The counsel also would contend that the Court Commissioner has been appointed and he has given the report stating that, 10 guntas had gone for Nala and suit schedule property is assigned with new Sy.No.1017/1. The counsel would vehemently contend that the report of the Commissioner is not disputed and the sale deed of the year 1969 is produced and marked as Ex.D1 and in the boundaries, it is mentioned as East by-Government land, West by-remaining land, North by-Government land and South by-Government land. The defendants have also produced the document of Ex.D7 which clearly discloses the old survey number as 864 and new survey number as 1017/1 and this survey number is not phoded. Though the plaintiff has denied the sale deed of the second defendant executed by their father, the same has not been questioned by the plaintiff. The P.Ws.1 and 2 have also admitted that new survey number is 1017/1. The counsel would further contend that, when the application is filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, the same was dismissed and committed error in dismissing the application. Hence, it requires interference. 18. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that, all the documents were standing in the name of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit, including Ex.P5-RTC Extract. It is the defence of the defendants that old survey number is 864/1 and the same was sold in the year 1969 to the extent of 24 guntas in terms of Ex.D1 and the defendants claim 24 guntas of land in respect of old Sy.No.864/1. However, the suit is filed in respect of old Sy.No.864/1 and new Sy.No.1017/1 and Sy.No.864/1 is not related to Sy.No.1017/1 and the total extent is also not stated and hence, the Commissioner was also appointed and he says that, new Sy.No.1017/1 is measuring 1 acre, 8 guntas and no dispute with regard to the fact that 8 guntas and 6 guntas of land was sold and 7 guntas of land was used for formation of Nala and in total, 21 guntas of land was not in the possession of the plaintiff and out of 1 acre, 8 guntas, the plaintiff is in possession to the extent of 27 guntas. 19. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff would further contend that both the Courts have taken note of oral and documentary evidence placed on record and comes to the conclusion that Sy.No.864/1 is not existing and suit is also filed in respect of new Sy.No.1017/1. It is further contended that both the Courts have given a concurrent finding on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and not committed any error and there is no perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, it does not require any interference. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants- defendants in his reply would contend that the property was sold in the year 1969 in favour of the father of second defendant and the Commissioner has also given the report which has not been challenged and in terms of the Commissioner's report, Old Sy.No.864/1 and new Sy.No.1017/1 are one and the same. The property on the northern side is measuring 30 guntas and in the middle, there is a Nala and other 8 guntas on the southern portion was also sold in favour of one Thimmaiah and the defendants are in possession to the extent of 24 guntas in terms of the earlier sale deed and 6 guntas was purchased subsequently and in total, the defendants are in possession to the extent of 30 guntas and no extent is available to grant the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deed of the year 1969 has not been challenged. The very execution of the sale deed in favour of the father of the second defendant was suppressed by the plaintiff and obtained the decree. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. reported in and brought to notice of this Court Para No.17, wherein the Apex Court held that, where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession has to be filed. 22. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in PREMJI RATANSEY SHAH AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. 22. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in PREMJI RATANSEY SHAH AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. reported in and brought to notice of this Court Para No.4 whether an injunction can be issued against the true owner and held that issuance of an order of injunction is absolutely a discretionary and equitable relief and the same cannot be granted against the true owner. 23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/S. SEEMAX CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER dtd. 12/12/1991 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.10 wherein, it is held that a party seeking discretionary relief has to approach the Court with clean hands is required to disclose all material facts which may, one way or the other, affect the decision and a person deliberately concealing material facts from Court is not entitled to any discretionary relief of injunction. 24. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in T.L.NAGENDRA BABU VS. MANOHAR RAO PAWAR reported in ILR 2005 KAR 884 and brought to notice of this Court Para Nos.34 and 51, wherein this Court observed that taking into consideration the evidence, the identity of the suit schedule property can be fixed and it is clearly identifiable and observation is also made in Para No.51 that the Courts have not taken note of the material on record and grant of injunction is serious in nature and it affects the rights of the parties. The Court must be very careful in evaluating the pleadings and evidence in the matter of injunction. 25. Having heard the contentions of the counsels and the substantial question of law framed by this Court while admitting the appeal, this Court has to consider the material on record whether both the Courts have committed an error in ignoring the sale deeds which have been executed in favour of the father of the second defendant and the first defendant, whether the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is perverse against the material on record ignoring the commissioner's report. 26. 26. The main contention of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property measuring 1 acre 8 guntas and after the death of her father, her brother-Revanna being the sole member of the family inherited the suit schedule property and during his lifetime, he had sold 8 guntas of land in favour of K Thammaiah vide sale deed dtd. 11/8/2004 and also sold another 6 guntas of land in favour of the first defendant through a registered sale deed dtd. 6/8/2006. The said Revanna also passed away on 4/3/2007. It is the claim of the plaintiff that out of 1 acre 8 guntas of land, 8 guntas and 6 guntas were sold by the brother of the plaintiff and 7 guntas of land was utilized for formation of channel and remaining 27 guntas of land was stands in the name of the plaintiff hence, sought for the relief of injunction. 27. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the father of the plaintiff was having 1 acre 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.864/1 of Kesthur village and it is their contention that out of that 1 acre 8 guntas, father of the plaintiff had executed the sale deed dtd. 8/6/1969, in favour of the second defendant to the extent of 24 guntas. Though boundaries were mentioned, it was realised that 30 guntas was conveyed under the sale deed. For the documentary purpose, 6 guntas of land was sold in favour of the first defendant by the brother of the plaintiff vide sale deed dtd. 4/4/2006. It is their claim that at the time of the execution of the sale deed to an extent of 6 guntas, new Sy.No.1017 was mentioned but while executing the sale deed in the year 1969, the survey number was mentioned as 864/1. 28. In order to consider the contentions of the parties, the substantial question of law is framed by this Court with regard to ignoring the materials on record particularly, the sale deeds as well as the evidence on record and not considered the commissioner's report and hence, this Court has to look into the evidence available on record. 29. PW1 in her evidence admitted the sale of the property of 8 guntas in favour of one Thammaiah and also 6 guntas of land in favour of the first defendant vide sale deed dtd. 6/8/2006. 29. PW1 in her evidence admitted the sale of the property of 8 guntas in favour of one Thammaiah and also 6 guntas of land in favour of the first defendant vide sale deed dtd. 6/8/2006. But claims that remaining land was in her occupation. Though she was cross-examined in length, it is elicited that in the middle of 1 acre 8 guntas of land, channel runs and only 7 guntas of land was utilized for formation of the said channel. It is also elicited that on the west of the suit schedule property, her father was also having other properties and if the boundaries of said property was mentioned, she can understand. It is also elicited that when survey number of suit land was 864 and new number was assigned as 1017. It is suggested that her father had sold the property which was on the northern side of the channel vide sale deed dtd. 8/6/1969 in favour of the second defendant, the said suggestion was denied. However, she admits selling of 8 guntas of land in favour of one Thammaiah and also selling of 6 guntas of land by her brother in favour of the first defendant. She also admits the boundaries of the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant. It is suggested that her father had sold the property in favour of the second defendant mentioning the old survey number and in respect of 24 guntas of land, the kahtha was still standing in the name of the first defendant and PW1 deposed that she was not aware of the same. It is also admitted that the land sold in favour of the first defendant is situated on the east of the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also examined one witness as PW2 who is the subsequent purchaser of the land to the extent of 8 guntas and he reiterates the case of the plaintiff and in the cross-examination, he admits that the survey number of the property which he had purchased is 1017/1 and total extent is 48 guntas and it is suggested that old survey number is 864/1 but he denies that he is not aware of the same. It is suggested that Revanna has got 27 guntas of other land and the said suggestion is admitted. 30. It is suggested that Revanna has got 27 guntas of other land and the said suggestion is admitted. 30. On the other hand, the second defendant has been examined as DW1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement and subjected to the cross-examination and in the cross-examination, he admits that in Sy.No.1017/1, total extent of land is 1 acre 8 guntas and the same was belongs to the father of the plaintiff and witness volunteers that the same is owned by his father after 1969. He also admits that other than this property, they have not having any ancestral property. He admits that his father purchased the property in Sy.No.864/1 to the extent of 24 guntas. He admits that the said property is standing in the name of his father from 1969 to 1991 in respect of Sy.No.864/1. He also admits that his wife had purchased 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.1017/1 and he admits that 10 guntas of land was utilized for the formation of the channel but he categorically admits that he had no document to show that the land to the extent of 10 guntas was utilized for the formation of the channel and denies that only 7 guntas of land was utilized for the formation of the channel. He also admitted that inspite of new number, he did not get changed the katha in the name of his wife. He also admits that in respect of Sy.No.1017/1, he has not produced any document to show that he has been in possession of the said property and also he admits that he has not paid any ax in respect of new Sy.No.1017/1 and he admits that he has been paying the tax in respect of Sy.No.864/1. But he claims that both survey numbers that is Sy.No.864/1 and 1017/1 are belonged to same property and he also admits that while purchasing the property from Revanna, survey number is mentioned as Sy.No.1017/1 and so also in the sale deed of Thammaiah. He also admits that in the sale deed of 6 guntas, nowhere it is mentioned that the same is in respect of Sy.No.864/1 and also admits that till date also he has been in paying the tax in respect of Sy.No.864/1. He also admits that he has not produced any documents even after filing of the suit that he has been in possession of the property. He also admits that he has not produced any documents even after filing of the suit that he has been in possession of the property. It is elicited that the land which is sold to the extent of 6 guntas, 8 guntas and 7 guntas of land which has utilized to the channel and remaining land, the plaintiff is in possession and the said suggestion is denied. He also admits that he has not produced any document for having resurveyed the land and also not produced any endorsement with regard to resurvey of the land. He also admits that he cannot tell the boundaries to the extent of 1 acre 8 guntas but he can tell the boundaries to the extent of 24 guntas. He also cannot say that in which year, Sy.No.864/1 renumbered as Sy.No.1017/1. It is also elicited that he cannot tell the extent of 27 guntas of land of the plaintiff. He cannot tell what is the extent of Sy.No.1017/1 when the property was purchased in the year 2007 in the name of his wife. It is also elicited that he has given an application for transfer of katha to the extent of 30 guntas after purchasing the property and the same is pending. It is elicited that Sy.No.864/1 is in Yedenahalli survey number and the same is different property and the said suggestion was denied. In Sy.No.1017/1, in total, 33 guntas, he had purchased only 6 guntas of land. He also admits that when Sy.No.864/1 was renumbered as Sy.No.1017/1, the documents will be there in the revenue department. It is his claim that in Sy.No.864/1, total extent is 40 guntas and out of that 10 guntas was given to the channel. It is suggested that he has falsely deposing that they have purchased 30 guntas of land and the said suggestion was denied and it is suggested that on the east of 24 guntas of land, the plaintiff's property of Chikonu is located and the said suggeston was denied. 31. The defendants have also examined one witness as DW2 who in his evidence says that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 30 guntas of land and given the boundary description and they are in possession from the last 40 years. It is also his evidence that he is owning the landed properties towards west of disputed land one furlong away from the same. It is also his evidence that he is owning the landed properties towards west of disputed land one furlong away from the same. The plaintiff's 5 guntas of land is lying fallow and disputed land is comes in Kesthur survey number. The plaintiff is also his relative. The disputed 30 guntas of land was sold by the father of the plaintiff in favour of Krishnaiah about 40 years ago and put him in possession, but about 4 years back, the said land was measured and at that time, it was found that the land in possession of defendants is 30 guntas and panchayat was convened and decided to execute the sale deed to the excess land of 6 guntas and accordingly, the plaintiff's brother Revanna executed the sale deed in favour of Sampoornamma in the year 2004. This witness was subjected to the cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he cannot tell whether Sy.Nos.864/1 and 1017/1 are one and the same or not and also he cannot tell that what is the extent of the land in Sy.No.1017/1. He admits that 30 guntas of boundary was given and when found that 6 guntas was less while executing the subsequent sale deed, the same is mentioned and he claims that 10 guntas may be given to channel. It is suggested that only 7 guntas was given for channel but he says that he cannot tell how much land was given to the channel. It is suggested that out of 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.1017/1, 7 guntas was given to channel, 8 guntas was sold in favour of Thammaiah and 6 guntas was sold in favour of the first defendant and in the remaining 24 guntas, the plaintiff is in possession and the said suggestion was denied and he says that he cannot tell the survey numbers. It is suggested that the first defendant purchased 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.1017/1 and 24 guntas was purchased by the second defendant in Sy.No.864/1 for that he says that he cannot tell the survey number. It is suggested that he is not having cordial relationship with the plaintiff's family hence, in order to give trouble, he is giving evidence on behalf of the defendants and the said suggestion was denied. He also admits that he has not seen the revenue records of 24 guntas and 5 guntas of land. It is suggested that he is not having cordial relationship with the plaintiff's family hence, in order to give trouble, he is giving evidence on behalf of the defendants and the said suggestion was denied. He also admits that he has not seen the revenue records of 24 guntas and 5 guntas of land. It is suggested that the plaintiff is in possession of 27 guntas of land and the said suggestion was denied and it is suggested that he is falsely deposing before the Court to help the defendants and he said suggestion was also denied. 32. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is the claim of the plaintiff that out of 1 acre 8 guntas as well as 6 guntas of land was sold in favour of Thammaiah and also in favour of first defendant and 7 guntas of land was used for formation of channel. In total, 21 guntas of land was not in possession of the plaintiff and she has been in possession to the extent of remaining 27 guntas. It is also her claim that earlier the survey number was 864 and the same is changed as Sy.No.1017. The contention of the defendants that out of 1 acre 8 guntas, admittedly, 8 guntas was sold in favour of Thammaiah and 6 guntas was sold in favour of the first defendant and 10 guntas of land was taken for formation of channel and the remaining area is only 24 guntas and the said 24 guntas of land was sold by the father of the plaintiff vide Sale Deed - Ex.D1 dtd. 8/6/1969. In order to prove their contentions, the parties have led their evidence and marked both plaintiff's series and defendants' series. 33. In the chief evidence of P.W.1, it is elicited that the property was the ancestral property of their father to the extent of 1 acre 8 guntas and after the death of the father, the property was transferred in favour of the plaintiff's brother Revanna and he had sold only 8 guntas and 6 guntas in his lifetime and he was cultivating the remaining land i.e., out of 1 acre 8 guntas. It is also his claim that only 7 guntas of land was taken for formation of the channel. 34. It is also his claim that only 7 guntas of land was taken for formation of the channel. 34. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 also admits that Sy.No.1017/1 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas is the ancestral property of her father and also admits formation of channel in the middle of the said property and specifically deposed that 7 guntas was taken for formation of channel and also admits that the said channel runs towards East to West. On the southern side, 8 guntas was in existence and the remaining land is on the northern side. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that on the west side of the suit schedule property; her father was also having the other property. It is elicited that old number of the suit property was Sy.No.864 and the new number assigned as Sy.No.1017, but denied the execution of the Sale Deed by the father in favour of second defendant on 8/6/1969. However, P.W.1 admits her brother has sold 8 guntas of land in favour K.Thammaiah and the remaining 6 guntas of land on the northern side of the channel was sold to the first defendant by her brother. But it is the claim of the defendants that there was excess land of 6 guntas apart from the Sale Deed dtd. 8/6/1969. Hence, the Sale Deed was executed and the same was denied. It is contended that the first defendant is having Khatha to the extent of 24 guntas of land and the same was denied. 35. The other witness - P.W.2, who is the purchaser of 8 guntas of land. A suggestion was made that old Sy.No.864/1, the same was denied that he is not aware of it and also suggested to the witness P.W.2 that, Revenna was having other 27 guntas of land and the same was admitted. Hence, it is clear that the very suggestion made to P.W.2 that the brother of plaintiff was having 27 guntas of land, but the only dispute is that both of them are claiming the said property belongs to them. No dispute with regard to having purchased 6 guntas of land in the name of the first defendant and also the same is from Sy.No.1017/1 and while purchasing the property in the name of the first defendant, survey number is mentioned as Sy.No.1017/1. 36. No dispute with regard to having purchased 6 guntas of land in the name of the first defendant and also the same is from Sy.No.1017/1 and while purchasing the property in the name of the first defendant, survey number is mentioned as Sy.No.1017/1. 36. It is important to note that a suggestion was made that 7 guntas of land was taken for channel and the said suggestion was denied. But he claims that it was 10 guntas. But, he categorically admits that he has not produced any documents to show that 10 guntas of land was used for formation of channel and also he categorically admits in the cross-examination that in the Sale Deed, the survey number is mentioned as 864/1. But he claims that it is mentioned as Yadanahalli Survey Number that means Kesturu Village Elle and mentioned as Yadanahalli, but the same is a spelling mistake. He admits that the village is in existence in the name of Yadanahalli and also he admits that he is residing in Yadanahalli Village. But he claims that old Sy.No.864/1 after re-survey the new number was assigned as Sy.No.1017/1. He categorically admits that he did not get the Khatha changed to a new number. He also admits that he has not produced any documents to show that he has been in possession in respect of Sy.No.1017/1 and also categorically admits that he has not paid any tax in respect of Sy.No.1017/1, but he claims the tax is paid in respect of Sy.No.864/1. He also claims that both Sy.No.No.864/1 and Sy.No.1017/1 are one and the same. But categorically admits that while purchasing the property from one Revenna, the survey number is mentioned as Sy.No.1017/1 and while selling the property in favour of Thammaiah, it is mentioned as Sy.No.1017/1 and also categorically admits that while purchasing the property to the extent of 6 guntas, Sy.No.864/1 has not been mentioned and categorically admits that till date they are paying tax in respect of Sy.No.864/1. It is also important to note that he categorically admits that he cannot tell when the new number was assigned to old Sy.No.864/1 as Sy.No.1017/1 and he cannot tell the entire boundary to the extent of 1 acre and 8 guntas. 37. It is also important to note that he categorically admits that he cannot tell when the new number was assigned to old Sy.No.864/1 as Sy.No.1017/1 and he cannot tell the entire boundary to the extent of 1 acre and 8 guntas. 37. Having considered all these materials available on record both oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the Sale Deed executed in the year 1969 in favour of father of D.W.1, in respect of Sy.No.864/1. He cannot tell when the survey number was re-numbered as Sy.No.1017/1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly relied upon the document of Ex.D7 which has been produced by the plaintiff before the Court. It is very clear that Ex.P2 is in respect of Mutation Register Extract, which clearly shows that by virtue of Ex.D4, the name of defendant No.1 has been mutated. Ex.D4 shows that the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in respect of 27 guntas, it is the claim made by the plaintiff as suit schedule property. Exs.P5 to P8 are the RTC Extracts which are standing in the name of father of the plaintiff - Hosaborahegde. Exs.P5 to P8, the certified copies of RTC extracts clearly shows that since 1969-1970, the name of Hosaborahegde is mentioned in respect of Sy.No.1017/1. The RTC extracts are also supports the contention of the plaintiff. The father had inherited the property in Sy.No.1017/1. But the claim of defendants is that old Sy.No.864/1 in terms of Ex.D1. In Ex.D1, it is mentioned as Sy.No.864/1 and also admitted in the cross-examination that till date, the defendant is paying the tax in respect of Sy.No.864/1 and the document has not been transferred in respect of Sy.No.1017/1. It is clear that as on the date of the Sale Deed dtd. 8/6/1969, the property was having Sy.No.1017/1 as per Ex.P5. Hence, it is clear that Sy.No.864/1 re-numbered as Sy.No.1017/1 is doubtful. Ex.D7, a copy of the survey record pertaining to Sy.No.1017/1, the same did not come to the aid of the defendants that Sy.No.864/1 has been assigned with new Sy.No.1017/1. It is also elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 suggesting by the defendants' counsel itself that the plaintiff's brother Revenna was having 27 guntas of other land and no doubt the Commissioner also filed the report stating that Sy.No.864 was Gomal land and the same was re-numbered as Sy.No.1017. He says that earlier it was Sy.No.864. It is also elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 suggesting by the defendants' counsel itself that the plaintiff's brother Revenna was having 27 guntas of other land and no doubt the Commissioner also filed the report stating that Sy.No.864 was Gomal land and the same was re-numbered as Sy.No.1017. He says that earlier it was Sy.No.864. 38. It is also the case of the plaintiff that earlier old survey number is 864 and new survey number is 1017. The land measuring 01 acre 10 guntas including kharab in Sy.No.1017. The Commissioner also in his report he has stated that Sy.No.864 is situated in new Sy.No.1017. It is not the contention of the Court Commissioner that Sy.No.864/1 and Sy.No.1017/1 are one and the same. He also reported that the entire Sy.No.864 is comprised with 33.20 acres and Sy.No.1017 is 2.29 acres and it is having 3 phodies. These are the aspects to be considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that without the documentary proof it cannot be believed that Sy.No.864/1 is Sy.No.1017/1 as contended by the defendants. Total extent of land in Sy.No.864 is 33.20 acres and also in Sy.No.1017 is 2.2 acres; the same is having three phodies. When such being the material and when the documentary evidence available before the Court and all the documents are stand in the name of the plaintiff as on the date of filing the suit and the Court has to see that whether the plaintiff has been in possession as on the date of the suit. It is also admitted by D.W.1 that he is paying the tax in respect of Sy.No.864/1 only and not in respect of Sy.No.1017/1. When no material has been placed by the defendants that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.1017/1, except the extent of 6 guntas, which they have purchased in the said survey number, the very contention of the defendants/appellants cannot be accepted. The defendants claim right in respect of 24 guntas in respect of Sy.No.864/1 as per the Sale Deed - Ex.D1. The defendants claim right in respect of 24 guntas in respect of Sy.No.864/1 as per the Sale Deed - Ex.D1. When such being the case and when the revenue records are standing in the name of the plaintiff as on the date of filing the suit and the scope of the suit for injunction is very limited and the Court has to examine whether on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff is in possession or not, any interference and defendant is also interfering and claiming that Sy.No.1017/1 belongs to him. Hence, there is an interference. Hence, the Trial Court taken note of these facts into consideration and also the First Appellate Court on re- appreciation also taken note of the defendants did not place any material that old Sy.No.864/1 becomes new No.1017/1 as claimed. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 39. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the judgment in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR's case (supra), the same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. First of all, the suit is filed for bare injunction and not for any other relief. The plaintiff also placed the documents with regard to her claim in respect Sy.No.1017/1, which is in existence from the year 1969 even as on the date of the father of the second defendant purchasing the property in the year 1969 and also categorically admit that he cannot tell in which year the old Sy.No.864/1 was assigned with new number and the title is not in dispute and only the claim is that they have purchased the property in the year 1969, but Sale Deed discloses Sy.No.864/1 and not new Sy.No.1017/1. He is also paying the tax in respect of Sy.No.864/1 and he claims that the Khatha and all stand in respect of Sy.No.864/1 and not Sy.No.1017/1. The defendant has to seek the comprehensive relief in respect of his claim that he has got the title when he is claiming that Sy.No.1017/1 belongs to him but the Sale Deed discloses Sy.No.864/1. The plaintiff need not seek for the better relief as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the judgment referred supra. 40. The defendant has to seek the comprehensive relief in respect of his claim that he has got the title when he is claiming that Sy.No.1017/1 belongs to him but the Sale Deed discloses Sy.No.864/1. The plaintiff need not seek for the better relief as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the judgment referred supra. 40. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants also relied upon other judgments, there cannot be any temporary injunction against the true owner but the documents stand in the name of the plaintiff throughout in respect of Sy.No.1017/1. Hence, the said contention also cannot be accepted. The other two judgments of Delhi High Court and also this Court, no doubt, the principles is very clear in a suit for declaration, the party who seeks for the discretionary relief, he has to approach with clean hands. The Court also should be careful in evaluating the pleadings and evidence in the matter of injunction. 41. In the case on hand, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have taken note of the documentary evidence and the defendants claim rights in respect of Sy.No.864/1 and new Sy.No.1017/1 and all the documents not discloses any documentary proof with regard to Sy.No.1017/1 as claimed by the defendants and instead of the plaintiff's documents clearly discloses in respect of Sy.No.1017/1. 42. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the second appeal to come to a conclusion that both the Courts have ignored the material on record and no doubt this Court while admitting the appeal framed the substantial question of law that there was a sale deed dtd. 8/6/1969 in favour of appellant No.2. But the same is in respect of Sy.No.864/1 and not in respect of Sy.No.1017/1. The appellants have failed to prove that Sy.No.864/1 becomes Sy.No.1017/1. Both the Courts after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case to grant the relief of permanent injunction and the dispute is not in respect of the property of the plaintiff and defendants' claim is Sy.No.864/1 become Sy.No.1017/1, and he failed to prove the same and all the documents pertaining to Sy.No.864/1. Both the Courts have taken note of the date of execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the father of defendant No.2. Both the Courts have taken note of the date of execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the father of defendant No.2. Sy.No.1017/1 is in existence in terms of Exs.P5 to P8 and the Sale Deed also in respect of Sy.No.864/1 of Yadanahalli Village. It is also the claim of the plaintiff that Sy.No.864/1 belongs to Yadanahalli Survey Number and not in respect of Kesthuru Survey number and the same is also admitted by D.W.1 in the cross-examination, it is mentioned as Yadanahalli Village and the same is a spelling mistake. When such material is available on record, I do not find any merit in the appeal to reverse the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Hence, I answer the substantial question of law as 'negative'. 43. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.