Suit for injunction — Perpetual injunction — Suit based on title and possession — Maintainability — “Cloud over title” — As on date of suit (25.02.2012), Saguvali Pramana Patra (Ex.P1) granted by Tahsildar was in force and not cancelled — Subsequent order of Assistant Commissioner cancelling grant (Ex.D7) passed during pendency of suit, and itself stayed in writ proceedings — Held, as on date of suit there was no cloud on plaintiff’s title so as to relegate him to a suit for declaration — Suit for bare injunction maintainable.

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Regular Second Appeal — Substantial question of law — Interference with finding on possession by First Appellate Court — When impermissible — Trial Court’s finding on possession based on Saguvali Pramana Patra (Ex.P1), Tahsildar’s order (Ex.P2), premium receipt (Ex.P3), Tahsildar’s letter to PSI for police protection (Ex.P4) and unchallenged evidence of PW.2 — First Appellate Court re-appreciating evidence and reversing well-reasoned finding held erroneous — High Court restores Trial Court decree.

(Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19)

B. Suit for injunction — Perpetual injunction — Suit based on title and possession — Maintainability — “Cloud over title” — As on date of suit (25.02.2012), Saguvali Pramana Patra (Ex.P1) granted by Tahsildar was in force and not cancelled — Subsequent order of Assistant Commissioner cancelling grant (Ex.D7) passed during pendency of suit, and itself stayed in writ proceedings — Held, as on date of suit there was no cloud on plaintiff’s title so as to relegate him to a suit for declaration — Suit for bare injunction maintainable.

(Paras 15, 16, 17)

C. Land Grants / Government Land — Karnataka — Government land cultivated “unauthorizedly” — Regularisation and grant — Effect — Plaintiff’s prior unauthorized cultivation over suit land regularised; grant certificate/Saguvali Pramana Patra (Ex.P1) issued and premium paid (Ex.P3) pursuant to Tahsildar’s order (Ex.P2) — Tahsildar’s letter (Ex.P4) directing police protection to plaintiff to protect his possession — Held, these documents establish plaintiff’s lawful possession as on date of suit.

(Paras 4, 11, 15)

D. Evidence Act, 1872 — Oral evidence — Unchallenged testimony — PW.2’s evidence on possession not subjected to cross-examination — Effect — Evidence of PW.2 that plaintiff is in possession and cultivating suit land remained unchallenged and supports Trial Court’s finding on possession.

(Paras 15, 18)

E. Property law — Competing claims to granted land — Defendants claiming to be in unauthorized cultivation and having only a pending application for grant (Ex.D8) — No grant in their favour — Their plea that plaintiff obtained grant by fraud and belongs to Scheduled Caste allegedly falsely stated — Assistant Commissioner’s cancellation order (Ex.D7) under challenge and stayed — Held, defendants having no grant and only a pending application cannot displace plaintiff’s established possession.

(Paras 5, 9, 13, 16, 17)

F. Practice & Procedure — Subsequent administrative order affecting title during pendency of suit — Assistant Commissioner’s order canceling grant (Ex.D7) passed after suit, revision filed then withdrawn, later challenged in writ petition where stay granted — Such subsequent development cannot be used by First Appellate Court to upset Trial Court’s decree based on status as on date of suit.

(Paras 12, 16)