A defendant’s admission of possession supports a permanent injunction against interference.

Jakkappa sued for a permanent injunction, claiming possession of a shed on a site allotted to him by the Panchayat on 23 October 2003.

Laxmibai denied his entitlement and challenged the allotment.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed that decree.

In second appeal, Laxmibai challenged the concurrent findings, including the finding that Jakkappa was in lawful possession.

Whether the Courts below’ findings were vitiated by failure to consider relevant evidence.

Whether the Courts below were justified in finding that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property on the date of filing the suit.

In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession and interference with that possession; the court assesses possession as at the date of suit.

An admission by a party in cross-examination may support a finding on the admitted fact.

The High Court considered the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having admitted it on substantial questions of law.

No precedent was cited.

The plaintiff relied on the Panchayat resolution recording the allotment and electricity bills relating to the shed.

More significantly, Laxmibai admitted in cross-examination that Jakkappa and his family were residing on the property, had an electricity connection, and had a water-tap connection.

The Court treated this admission as sufficient evidence of possession.

It also found interference established by the complaint made by Laxmibai to the Rehabilitation Officer, who in turn lodged a complaint with the police seeking removal of the shed.

The concurrent findings were therefore not vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal.

It confirmed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and made no order as to costs.