Unchallenged evidence of possession supports an injunction where the defendant fails to prove the claimed gift and possession.

The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction, asserting that he owned and possessed the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 12 September 1991.

He relied on the sale deed, khata certificates, a tax-paid receipt and a sanctioned plan.

The defendant denied the plaintiff’s title and possession and claimed that the property had been gifted to him by his father under a gift deed dated 31 January 2009.

The trial court found the issues of the plaintiff’s possession, interference and entitlement proved and decreed the suit.

The defendant appealed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Whether the trial court’s judgment and decree granting a permanent injunction suffered from perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for an appeal from an original decree.

The Court assessed whether the trial court’s decision was affected by perversity or illegality and considered the plaintiff’s evidence of possession against the defendant’s failure to prove his asserted gift and possession.

The judgment cites no precedents or further statutory provisions.

The plaintiff supported his claim of possession with his testimony and documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed, khata certificates, tax receipt and sanctioned plan.

The Court noted that cross-examination had elicited nothing material to disprove the plaintiff’s case.

By contrast, the defendant did not enter the witness box or make himself available for cross-examination to substantiate his claim under the gift deed.

The Court therefore found no error or illegality in the trial court’s assessment of the evidence or its decree.

The appeal was dismissed.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendant’s right to bring a comprehensive suit before the competent civil court, if permitted by law; pending applications were disposed of accordingly.