1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1912 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1925 OF 2023 IN RFA NO.1912/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. P. VASUDEVA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, S/O LATE P. NARAYANA AITHAL, R/O NO.49, 4TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. C. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE B. CHOWRAPPA, 2 . SRI. C. DAVID RAJA S/O LATE B. CHOWRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH R/AT, VEERAIAHNAPALYA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) 2 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:11.08.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.4968/2014 ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO.1925/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. UMESH N V AGED ABOUT 61 YAERS, S/O LATE N. VASUDEV BHAT, R/O NO.132, 1ST MAIN ROAD, MLA LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. C. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF LATE D. CHOWRAPPA, 2 . SRI. C. DAVID RAJA SON OF LATE D.CHOWRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT VEERAIAHNAPALYA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:11.08.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.4967/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.12.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN CAV JUDGMENT RFA No.1925/2023 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff passed XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, in O.S.No.4967/2014. 2. RFA No.1912/2023 filed under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff passed by the XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-43) in O.S.No.4968/2014. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and counsels for the respondents. 4. The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial court and the respondents are the defendants in the trial court. 5. The ranks of the parties is retained as before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 17.12.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.02.2025 4 6. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.4967/2015 filed by the one Umesh is that, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction that he is the owner of the vacant site bearing No.593, situated at Vyalikaval House Co-operative Society Limited at Nagawara village, he had purchased the same from G.Prasad Reddy, through registered sale deed dated 26.08.2005. After purchase, the BDA has registered the khatha and he is paying the taxes, the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the site from the society on 31.03.2004. The site is formed in Sy.No.49/3 at Nagawara village and sanctioned layout plan and acquisition was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The plaintiff with intention to put up the construction obtained the plan and license. When he started construction the defendant caused the interference over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The description of the parties and names and their father’s names are not correct. The plaintiff is guilty of suppression of the material fact. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The specific case of the defendant is that the land comprised in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village, measuring 2 acre 24 guntas is their ancestral property. In this regard a registered partition deed 5 dated 24.05.1972 was entered between the family members between the father of the defendants i.e., Chinnaswamy Reddy and Chowri Reddy. The property in Sy.No.49/3 measuring 2 acres allotted to the share of Chowri Reddy with understanding of the family members, 24 guntas was earmarked as a private burial ground. The revenue records of the property got in the name of Chowri Reddy, the remaining 24 guntas continued to be stand in the name of Davidappa. 8. It is further contended that the property in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village was totally measuring 7 acres 10 guntas and the acquired extent of land was owned by Jojappa to the extent of 1 acre 26 guntas, Chowri Reddy to the extent of 2 acres, David Raju to the extent of 3 acres and Davidappa to the extent of 24 guntas. The aforesaid land was notified by the Government for acquisition to be acquired for the society. The Jojappa has challenged the acquisition proceedings before the High Court of Karnataka and also Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter he has withdrawn the petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to Sy.No.49/3 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and conveyed the property to one M/s Shobha Developers. The property in Sy.No. 49/3 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas was never come to the possession of the society for formation of layout. The Davidraju had executed registered sale 6 deed in favour of one Vijayalaxmi Patil, in turn the revenue documents were entered in the name of purchaser. The suit schedule property does not fall within the boundaries or the extent of measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Sy.No.49/3. The defendants have pleaded that the property in Sy.No. 49/3 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas including 24 guntas of burial ground in their possession. The defendant further contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1932/2012 has passed the order dated 07.02.2012 and given direction that the respondent No.1-society to return the acquired lands to the land owners except the land owners who had withdrawn the special leave petition, especially who was withdrawn the special leave petition only in respect of 49/3 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas of Nagawara village. The compensation amount was refunded. The possession certificate dated 25.03.2009 reveals the same. The revenue records entered in the name of Chowri Reddy. The title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed. Hence, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. 9. Based upon the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants? 7 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 4) What order or decree? 10. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 43 documents at Ex.P.1 to 43 and on behalf of the defendant the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and he got marked 66 documents at Ex.D.1 to 66. After hearing the arguments the trial court answered the issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and ultimately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. 11. In respect of the RFA No.1912/2023 also similar case, where the plaintiff -P.Vasudeva Aithal filed the suit for perpetual injunction contending that the suit schedule property was purchased on 26.08.2005 from one Prasad Reddy. After the purchase the BDA issued khatha certificate and he has paid taxes. The vendors of the plaintiff has purchased the property on 31.03.2004 from the society. The suit schedule property was site No.594, formed in Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara village, he has obtained the sanction plan and when he started construction the defendant interfered. Hence, he filed the suit. 12. The defendant appeared and filed written statement, a similar contention was taken by the defendant as taken in the 8 OS.No. 4967/2014 and prayed for dismissal of the suit, mainly on the ground that suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. 13. The trial court also framed the four similar issues which are as under; 1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 4) What order or decree? 14. And on behalf of the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 32 documents. On behalf of the defendant who himself examined as DW.1 and got marked 58 documents. After hearing the arguments trial court answered the issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and ultimately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff/appellant filed the present appeal. 15. Both the suits are similar in nature and adjacent site Nos.593 and 594. Two different plaintiffs and the same defendants, hence taken together for passing common judgment as same fact and question of law involved. 9 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehementally contended that the sites were purchased by the plaintiff through their vendor who was originally allottee from the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society. Thereafter, they are in possession, they paid taxes, khatha certificate issued by the BDA and they are in possession of the property but the defendants are trying to interfere with the property. He further contended that the acquisition proceeding was previously challenged by the one of the person, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court given benefit to all other land owners and later the same was modified, 52 acres 17 guntas have been questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was de-notified /notification withdrawn by the State. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed of the plaintiff and their vendors. He also contended that if the lands were not acquired for the society, the question of purchase of the sites by the very same respondent by the society does not arise. The respondents are not challenged the acquisition proceedings and the property does not fall under the notification withdrawn by the BDA. Therefore, there is no question of filing the suit for declaration as there is no dispute regarding the title. The plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence contended that the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the suit. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals 10 and granting perpetual injunction against the defendants/respondents. 17. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents contended that the name of both the defendants are incorrectly mentioned in the suit. The name of the defendant’s father also mentioned wrongly. The correction was not done in spite of objection raised by the defendants in the written statement. He further contended that the plaintiff claims possession of the property as it is vacant site, having purchased from the society, the SLP withdrawn in respect of Sy.No.49/3, then site situated in acquisition has been challenged, the plaintiff wants to identify the sites in the said land. He further contended that out of the total land, 1 acre 26 guntas went to the Jojappa and 2 acre went to the Chowri Reddy, 3 acres went to the David Raju and 24 guntas went to the Davidappa, out of total extent of 7 acres 10 guntas. The uncle Chowri Reddy before his death registered the will in favour of defendants as per Ex.D.27. The acquisition was questioned, 52 acres 17 guntas is not questioned, 2 acres is not within those 52 acres. The excess sites were formed by the society and they returned. The land acquired has not been challenged. The SLAO issued certificate, the property has been returned to the owners. There is reference available in the record. The RTC's stands in the name of defendant. The defendant is in possession of extent of land till 2023. The evidence of the 11 Chowri Reddy and mutation order as per Ex.D.21 reveals the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.D.27 is the will in respect of A schedule property. The sites have been purchased by the plaintiff situated in other properties. The plaintiff claimed that it is a vacant site. Subsequently, they put up the compound wall. The relief of perpetual injunction cannot be granted, since there is a cloud over the title of the property. Therefore, bare injunction suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is required to file the suit for declaration. In spite of claiming the right over the written statement suit schedule property, the plaintiff not chosen to amend the suit, seeking comprehensive relief. Hence, he supported the judgment of the trial court. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeals. 18. The appellant counsel by way of reply contended that the property of plaintiff shown the boundaries in the sale deed and formed out of in Sy.No.49/3, therefore there is no question of filing any suit for declaration. After the acquisition, the uncle of the defendant have no right. The society colluded with the BDA and passed the order. These documents were not produced before the trial court and hence prayed for allowing the appeals. 19. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, the points that arise for my consideration are; 12 1) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs proved that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiffs proved the defendants are interfering in the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the judgment of the trial court dismissing the both the suits liable to be interfere? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the injunction sought? 20. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records which reveals the plaintiffs themselves filed an affidavit and examined as PW.1. Both the plaintiffs have got marked various documents. The plaintiff in OS.No.4967/2014 (RFA No.1925/2023) marked 43 documents. Ex.P.1 is the sale deed executed by one Prasad Reddy on 26.08.2005 in favour of the plaintiff. The reference available in the sale deed that these lands were formed out of various survey numbers including Sy.No.49/3 and it is also stated in the sale deed the said site was purchased by the Prasad Reddy from the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society on 31.03.2004 and he has stated subsequently he has obtained the khatha as per Ex.P.2 on 05.09.2005 and Ex.P.3 is the affidavit, Ex.P.4 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P.5 is the endorsement issued by the SLAO to the plaintiff for obtaining the plan for construction. Ex.P.6 is the 13 possession certificate issued by the Vyalikaval society in favour of Prasad Reddy, the site No.593 measuring 60X40 feet. Ex.P.9 is the sale deed of Vyalikaval society executed in favour of G.Prasad Reddy on 31.03.2004 along with the developers. Ex.P.10 is the endorsement issued by the Police on the complaint filed by the plaintiff/ appellant. Ex.P.12 is the official gazette notification for acquisition of various lands by the authority, Ex.P.13 is the final notification under Section 6 of land acquisition act. Ex.P.14 is the rectification notification issued by the SLAO. Ex.P.15 is the order passed by the BDA, after the resolution for approving layout plan. Ex.P.17 is the Tippany, Ex.P.18 is the proceedings of the State Government of Karnataka, wherein proceedings were stayed returning of the lands to the land owners, Ex.P.19 is the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012 filed by the one B.Anjanappa and others against Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited and others. Ex.P.20 is the another order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case. Ex.P.21 is the compliance report filed by the society as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ex.P.22 to 27 are the photographs. Ex.P.29 to 35 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.P.36 is electricity bill, Ex.P.37 to 40 are the photographs, Ex.P.42 is the gift deed executed by G.Prasad Reddy in favour of one Prakash Paul. 14 Ex.P.43 also another gift deed by G.Prasad Reddy in favour of Albert David.C. 21. On the other hand the defendant to prove his case he himself examined as DW.1 and he has reiterated the defence taken in the written statement. 22. He has further contended in his evidence that the land in Sy.No.49/3 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas is their ancestral property, received under partition dated 24.05.1972 and his father and his uncle were cultivating the lands. 2 acres of land given to his junior uncle Chowri Reddy and 24 guntas were used for burial ground. It is visible for having using this land as burial ground. The revenue records discloses the name as his uncle as he is owner of 2 acres in Sy.No.49/3 and 24 guntas continued in the name of Davidappa who is great grandfather as per MR No.66/1973-74. He further contended that out of total extent of 7 acres 10 guntas the lands divided as for Jojappa 1 acre 26 guntas, Chowri Reddy 2 acre, David Raju 3 acres, Davidappa 24 guntas, total measurement is 7 acres 10 guntas. He further contended that he is only related to the Chowri Reddy and Davidappa. The extent of land was notified by the Government for acquisition in favour of Vyalikaval Housing Co- operative Society, the Chowri Reddy neither defendant nor his uncle challenged the acquisition proceedings before the High Court. The 15 matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Davidappa died in the year 1972. Hence, there is no question of challenging. Only the Jojappa owned 1 acre 26 guntas, challenged the acquisition the proceedings and the acquisition proceedings has been withdrawn. Hence, the land was never given to the society, which was given to one Channappa, in turn he transferred to one Shobha developers. The land has been subsequently measured and phoded as survey No.49/3 has been mutated, a new number was assigned as MR No.51/2004-05, RTC also refer the same. After the bifurcation in Sy.No. 49/3 there is only 5 acres 29 guntas, which clearly reveals in the RTC. The David Raju owned 3 acres in Sy.No.49/3. He has executed sale deed in favour of one Vijayalaxmi Patil and revenue records mutated in their name. It is clear that the extent of land referred in the sale deed 1 acre 26 guntas, the land has been left in view of the Special Leave Petition being withdrawn before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not led to the land owned and possessed by the Chowri Reddy. It is further contended that the land belongs to his family is concern measuring 2 acres 24 guntas including burial ground stands in the name of Chowri Reddy and Davidappa which is bounded East by road leading to Erapalya and Hindu burial ground and portion of 49/4, west by property earlier belongs to David Raju now belongs to Vijayalaxmi Patil, North by Government channel, South by private property. He further 16 contended that in the Civil Appeal No.1932/2012 and the connected appeals came to be filed by Anjanappa, came to be allowed, the judgment of the High Court has been set aside. However, the direction was not applied to the all other land owners who have withdraw the special leave petition and if the land owners has received compensation later shall be free from recover in accordance with the law. The contempt petition came before Hon’ble Apex Court, where the Vyalikaval society filed the compliance report showing Sy.No.49/3 came to be withdrawn but there is no reference to remaining extent of land in the same survey numbers, which clearly shows there is no SLP filed and withdrawing the SLP does not arises. All the revenue records stands in the name of Chowri Reddy and the plaintiffs cannot claim any possession of the said land as such bare injunction suit is not maintainable. 23. In support of his contention the defendant got marked 58 documents at Ex.D.1 to 58. Ex.D.1 is the letter issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for returning of the lands to the land owners in respect of Sy.No.49/3, measuring 6 acre 36 guntas and 14 guntas kharab land, where the defendants claims the property. And the plaintiff said to be claims the site carved out of the various survey numbers of land including present survey No.49/3. Ex.D.2 is the letter issued by the BDA to Vyalikaval Society for returning all the lands to the land owners. Ex.D.3 is the 17 record of rights stands in the name of Chowri Reddy and subsequently Vijaylaxmi Patil as per MR.No.36/2002-03 dated 27.01.2003, continuously the revenue records stands in the name of Chowri Reddy and Vijaylaxmi Patil till 2013-14. Ex.D.5 is the partition deed executed by family members of Chowri Reddy, the ancestor of the title over the property belongs to the defendant on 24.05.1972, where the land in Sy.No.49/3 fallen to the share of the Chowri Reddy. The Ex.D.6 is the bifurcation and sketch prepared regarding bifurcation of Sy.No.49/3 by the three person excluding 24 guntas towards the burial ground. The Ex.D.8 is the tippany resolution of the BDA for cancelling the approval of the layout. Ex.D.9 is the letter of Deputy Commissioner for encroachment ordered by Tahsildar. Ex.D.10 is the letter dated 13.06.2014 issued by the State Government to the Deputy Commissioner on the letter issued by the Chowri Reddy to the State Government for giving protection to the land of the defendant of Sy.No.49/3. Ex.D.11 is the acknowledgement issued by the police and Ex.D.12 is the endorsement to approach the Civil Court, a complaint was lodged against the plaintiff by the defendant. Ex.D.13 to 20 are the RTC’s stands in the name of Chowri Reddy, Devidappa and Vijaylaxmi Patil till 2023 from 2014 onwards as per the MR No.36/2002-03 later MR No.5/2013-14 dated 05.11.2013. Ex.D.21 is the mutation register extract stands in the name of defendant family, the contention of 18 the defendant is that after returning of the land a portion of land in Sy.No.49/1 has been sold to Shobha Developers measuring 1 acre 17 guntas by way of sale deed at Ex.D.23 dated 22.12.2006 which reveals the boundary shown land in Sy.No.49/3 on the southern side. Ex.D.24 is the Patta book, Ex.D.25 is the letter issued by the State Government to the SLAO. Ex.D.26 is the letter of the State Government to the Tahsildar directing the Tahsildar to restore the land of the land owners including Sy.No.49/3. Ex.D.27 is the will executed by Chowri Reddy in favour of Prakash Paul and Albert David and Sunitha- the defendants herein. Ex.D.28 and 29 are the death certificates of Chowri Reddy and Philomena. Ex.D.30 is the Uttara Pathra issued by the BBMP, Ex.D.31 is the affidavit of the BBMP, Ex.D.32 to 39 are the tax pad receipts in respect of said land in Sy.No.49/3. Ex.D.40 is the handing over the land acquired in favour of the Vyalikaval Society to the land owners as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ex.D.41 is the addendum issued by the Government on 07.08.2013, that 165 acres were already handed over to the Vyalikaval Society which is ordered to be returned to the land owners. Ex.D.42 is the written letter to the BBMP by the Prasad.N.V for clarification regarding site formed by the Vyalikaval Society and cancellation of the approval. Ex.D.43 is also another letter regarding cancellation of the allotment made to the Vyalikaval Society. These documents goes to show that 19 acquisition made by the Vyalikaval Society has been cancelled and the property ordered to be returned to the land owners and subsequently the lands vested with the defendant and they are in possession. Ex.D.44 is the notification of the State Government for acquisition of land which is not in dispute, Ex.D.45 is the final notification, Ex.D.46 is copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.1930/2012 challenged by the Anjanappa against Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited and others, which is also not in dispute. Ex.D.47 is the contempt petition in the said case. Ex.D.48 is the affidavit in support of compliance report of the society made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where they have returned the various lands to the owners by complying the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. But they have not stated the entire land of Sy.No.49/3 handover but they have stated 1 acre 26 guntas remaining, there is no reference available. The Ex.D.50 is the judgment copy of the Division Bench filed by Anjanappa challenging the order of the Single Judge for refused to quash the notification, the same was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP No.1930/2012. Ex.D.51 to 58 are the copies of the judgment passed in various cases by the Civil Court in respect of filing the suit for permanent injunction claiming the right over the sites having purchased from the Vyalikaval Society. When all the suits came to be dismissed by the Civil Court. 20 24. On perusal of these documents clearly suggests that the lands in Sy.No.49/3 has been in possession of the defendant from 2002-2003 as per the mutation register extract and once again in 2013-14 the same was mutated in the name of Vijayalaxmi Patil. The order of revenue records continues to be in possession. Though the lands were notified on behalf of the society subsequently, the same was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and though the modification order was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the lands were already returned to the land owners and the same in possession. The property of the plaintiff could not be identified, whether it is carved out of Sy.No.49/3. On the other hand it was formed out of the entire survey numbers of various lands. Therefore, it is necessary for the Vyalikaval Society should be impleaded as party and not identifies the location of the property of the plaintiff in respect of suit property and there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs. Such being the case, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff could have converted the suit into declaration and injunction in spite of claiming the right over the property from the defendant. The plaintiff has not chosen to amend the plaint or file the fresh suit for declaration and injunction by impleading all the parties. As I held above very Civil Court dismissed the suit of the various sites owners for claiming the 21 injunction as per Ex.D.50 to 60. This judgment also one of the judgment among them, where the plaintiff unable to establish the title and location of the property in Sy.No.49/3. Therefore the plaintiff failed to prove lawful possession over the suit schedule property and in view of the findings that the defendant are in possession of Sy.No.49/3 of Nagawara Village and identity of the property by the plaintiff also in dispute and they are not in possession. The revenue records, mutation entries were all reveals the presumption in favour of defendants having possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the documents of the plaintiff except the sale deeds, remaining documents are subsequent documents. Therefore, considering the entire documents on records the trial court rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, as there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs Buchi Reddy, there is nothing to interfere in the judgment of the trial court and not to reverse the judgment. 25. As regards to the another RFA No.1912/2023 also pertaining to the site No.594, the defendant documents are one and the same, except the plaintiff documents in respect of sale deed at Ex.P.3 and 8 which are the sale deeds of the Vyalikaval Society in 22 favour of Prasad Reddy as per Ex.P.7 and Prasad Reddy executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-Vasudeva Aithal as per Ex.P.3. All other documents were subsequent to the sale deeds. And the defendant documents, evidence and defence taken by the defendant in these cases are one and the same. Though the documents are marked in both the cases but the fact of the case is same. The plaintiff claimed the right over the property through their vendors vendor the Vyalikaval Society, where as the defendant claims the property in Sy.No.49/3 and in view of the detail consideration in the RFA No.1925/2023 and the same finding and consideration is applicable to this case on hand. Therefore, the suit for bare injunction filed by the plaintiff in OS.No.4967/2014 and OS.No.4968/2014 is not maintainable in view of Anathula Sudhakar Vs Buchi Reddy Case supra and suit for declaration not filed by them by impleading the society. Hence, there is dispute regarding identification and the location of property in Sy.No.49/3. Considering the facts and circumstances I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in both cases, there is nothing to interfere in the judgments passed by the trial court. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief claimed in their suits. Accordingly, both the appeals are devoid of merits. Hence the following; 23 ORDER The RFA No.1912/2023 and RFA No.1925/2023 filed by the appellant/plaintiff are hereby dismissed. No order to the costs. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SRK CT:SK