Karnataka HC Upholds Injunction Protecting Plaintiff’s Fenced Plot From Brother Despite Boundary Discrepancies

The respondent-plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction concerning a house property in Kolige village, alleging possession under a chain of registered conveyances and interference with its northern fence by the appellant-defendant

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding possession and identification of the property unproved; the First Appellate Court reversed and decreed the suit, restraining interference with the plaintiff’s possession and removal of the fence

The defendant appealed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the appellate findings on possession, interference, and identification of the property

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s dismissal and finding that the plaintiff was in possession and that the defendant had interfered with that possession

Whether the alleged discrepancies in the description and identification of the suit property raised a substantial question of law warranting interference in second appeal

The appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, under which interference in a second appeal requires a substantial question of law; factual findings based on the pleadings and evidence do not warrant interference merely because another view may be possible, absent a material legal infirmity

In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the suit property and the alleged interference.

No specific precedent was cited.

The High Court found that the plaintiff’s conveyance documents, panchayat records, tax receipts, and survey materials supported his possession of the scheduled property

By contrast, the defendant’s documents did not refer to that property or establish his possession over it

The First Appellate Court had considered the alleged differences in measurements and boundaries, including the road margin, and explained why they did not disprove the plaintiff’s claim

The High Court held that these were evidence-based factual findings and that the defendant had shown no illegality or infirmity giving rise to a substantial question of law

It dismissed the second appeal, leaving in force the decree permanently restraining the defendant and those acting on his behalf from removing the northern fence or interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property