JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. The captioned appeal is filed by defendants assailing the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.25248/2019 wherein the Court of first instance has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff, asserting herself to be the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Site No. 37, measuring 224.96 sq. mts., situated in Gavipuram Extension, H.S.B.S. Layout, instituted a suit in O.S. No. 24258/2019 seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiff contended that her mother was a member of the Gavipuram House Building Co-operative Society, which had acquired Survey No. 42/68. Based on such acquisition, the said Society allotted the suit site to her mother, and a registered sale deed was executed in her favour on 30.07.2003. It is further contended that the plaintiff’s mother subsequently executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, pursuant to which the plaintiff claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She asserts that she has also availed a bank loan and obtained a sanctioned plan for construction of a residential building. However, during the course of construction, the defendants allegedly interfered with her possession, thereby compelling her to institute the present suit for injunction simpliciter. 4. Upon service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, denying all material allegations made in the plaint. The defendants contended that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact of having earlier instituted a suit in O.S. No. 839/2019 against them and subsequently withdrawing the same. On that ground, the defendants questioned the maintainability of the present suit. Additionally, it was contended that the acquisition made in favour of the Gavipuram House Building Co-operative Society was quashed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 1845/1990. Therefore, the defendants submitted that there exists a serious cloud over the plaintiff’s title. In view of the same, the defendants argued that a bare suit for injunction, without seeking the relief of declaration, is not maintainable. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Therefore, the defendants submitted that there exists a serious cloud over the plaintiff’s title. In view of the same, the defendants argued that a bare suit for injunction, without seeking the relief of declaration, is not maintainable. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is absolute owner of suit schedule property obtained under gift from her mother on 21/11/2015 and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are causing interference to her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the relief sought for? 5. What order or decree?" 6. Plaintiff and defendants in order to substantiate their respective claims, led in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and examined two independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to 39. Defendants examined defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to 18. 7. The trial Court referring to the evidence let in by plaintiff and defendants answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative and held that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating that she is the owner and is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. While answering Issue No.2 in the affirmative, the trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in demonstrating that there is interference at the hands of defendants. While answering Issue No.3 in the affirmative, the trial Court has held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving that she is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Consequently, the suit is decreed. 8. Defendants assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court are before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the defendants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that in light of the fact that the matter is currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4968/2020, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court granting a perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. He submitted that, in the interim, this Court ought to direct both parties to maintain status quo. Referring to the rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendants, he emphasized that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 1845/1990, has already quashed the acquisition proceedings. In this backdrop, he argued that the Trial Court committed a grave error in granting the relief of injunction despite there being a serious cloud over the plaintiff’s title. Therefore, he asserted that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from serious legal infirmities and warrants interference by this Court. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, supporting the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court, submitted that the plaintiff has clearly traced her title to the suit property through her mother, who derived title from the Gavipuram House Building Co- operative Society. The society, in turn, had acquired land bearing Survey No. 42/68 for allotment to its members. He further contended that the reliance placed by the defendants on the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 4968/2020 before the Apex Court is misplaced and irrelevant to the present controversy. It was pointed out that the defendants herein, particularly defendants 1 to 5, have never challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to Survey No. 42/68, under which the suit schedule property falls. The learned counsel emphasized that merely because the defendants have been permitted to contest proceedings before the Supreme Court does not, by itself, confer any right on them to seek reversal of the decree passed by the Trial Court, especially when they have failed to demonstrate any independent right, title or interest over the suit property. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel on record, this Court has carefully examined the pleadings. This Court has also meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the interim order granted by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4968/2020. 12. The following points would arise for consideration: "(1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating her lawful possession and alleged interference by defendants 1 to 5 suffers from infirmities and therefore, would warrant interference? 12. The following points would arise for consideration: "(1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff has succeeded in substantiating her lawful possession and alleged interference by defendants 1 to 5 suffers from infirmities and therefore, would warrant interference? (2) Whether the pendency of civil appeal before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4968/2020 and grant of status quo order would come to the aid of defendants and therefore, defendants are entitled for reversal of the perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court?" 13. Findings on point Nos.1 and 2: Upon a comprehensive examination of the material on record, it is evident that the Gavipuram House Building Co-operative Society, subsequent to the acquisition of land, proceeded to form a layout in Survey Nos. 42/65, 42/68, and 42/70. The records further indicate that the possession of the said survey numbers was handed over to the Society by the Government, thereby enabling it to proceed with the formation of a residential layout. In support of this fact, the plaintiff has relied upon and produced Ex.P8, which evidences the permission granted by the competent authority for the formation of the layout. Furthermore, Ex.P19 clearly establishes that the layout was duly approved by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), thereby lending credence to the plaintiff's case regarding the legitimacy of the layout and allotment process. 14. To substantiate that her mother was a bonafide member of the said Society, the plaintiff has produced and marked the membership identity card as Ex.P33. To establish possession and ownership post-execution of the gift deed by her mother, the plaintiff has placed reliance on the original title documents, which have been mortgaged with the State Bank of India. The existence of the mortgage is supported by a covering letter issued by the Bank, marked as Ex.P38, which has been formally introduced in evidence through P.W.3 – the Bank Manager. In addition, photographs produced by the plaintiff clearly depict that she is in actual physical possession of the suit schedule property and had commenced construction activities subsequent to the sale deed in favour of her mother and the subsequent gift deed in her favour. 15. A deeper scrutiny of Ex.D6, produced by the defendants, reveals that defendants 1 to 5 have not challenged the acquisition proceedings relating to Survey Nos. 42/65, 42/68, and 42/70. 15. A deeper scrutiny of Ex.D6, produced by the defendants, reveals that defendants 1 to 5 have not challenged the acquisition proceedings relating to Survey Nos. 42/65, 42/68, and 42/70. Ex.D6 is the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1845/1990, wherein the acquisition proceedings were quashed only insofar as they pertained to Survey No. 119. The said writ petition was filed by one K.A. Nainan and did not concern the lands involved in the present dispute. The quashing was premised on the ground that the Society had failed to secure prior sanction before proceeding with the acquisition of Survey No. 119. However, this has no bearing on Survey Nos. 42/65, 42/68, or 42/70. 16. Significantly, there is no material on record to show that defendants 1 to 5 have ever independently questioned the validity of the acquisition in respect of Survey No. 42/68, the very land in which the suit schedule site is located. The general assertion that the acquisition is now under challenge before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4968/2020 is not substantiated by any evidence. No documents in that regard have been placed on record by way of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This failure further weakens the defendants’ stand. 17. Be that as it may, unless and until the acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey Nos. 42/65, 42/68, and 42/70 are specifically quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff’s claim, which is derived through her mother and the co-operative society, remains valid and legally sustainable. The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing not only the flow of title but also her continuous and lawful possession of the suit schedule property. In this background, this Court finds that the decree of permanent injunction granted by the Trial Court is based on cogent, convincing, and clinching evidence, and no grounds have been made out for interference with the said findings. 18. The plaintiff has effectively demonstrated her ownership and possession of the suit schedule property, based on a valid gift deed executed by her mother, who in turn derived title from the co-operative society. The evidence adduced, including documentary proof such as the sanctioned building plan, photographs showing ongoing construction, and the mortgage with a scheduled bank, further corroborate her possession. The plaintiff has effectively demonstrated her ownership and possession of the suit schedule property, based on a valid gift deed executed by her mother, who in turn derived title from the co-operative society. The evidence adduced, including documentary proof such as the sanctioned building plan, photographs showing ongoing construction, and the mortgage with a scheduled bank, further corroborate her possession. In contrast, the rebuttal evidence led by the defendants fails to displace or counter the plaintiff’s claim. With respect to the pendency of the civil appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the status quo, if any, would in fact operate in favour of the plaintiff, who is in settled possession of the suit property. The record supports the fact that the plaintiff availed a bank loan and commenced construction in accordance with sanctioned permissions. 19. In view of the plaintiff having substantiated her lawful possession and in the absence of any challenge to the acquisition proceedings pertaining to Survey No. 42/68 by the present defendants, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court. The decree of permanent injunction has been rightly granted, and the defendants are always at liberty to establish their rights, if any, in the pending civil appeal before the Apex Court. Until such time, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment. Accordingly, the points formulated for consideration are answered in the negative. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.