Onus On Plaintiff To Prove Possession Of Property In Suit For Bare Injunction: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently held that in a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Justice S G Pandit added that in such cases, the defendant is not required to move an application to prove the authenticity of the documents produced by the plaintiff during the course of evidence."In a suit...
The Karnataka High Court recently held that in a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property.
Justice S G Pandit added that in such cases, the defendant is not required to move an application to prove the authenticity of the documents produced by the plaintiff during the course of evidence.
"In a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession... In the course of trial admittedly the respondent/plaintiff has marked exhibits P11 to P23, documents said to have been issued by the BBMP or the Grama Panchayath of Tanisandra. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the documents in accordance with law and it is for the Trial Court, at the time of final disposal, to evaluate and to appreciate the documents and its genuineness."
The respondent had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioners, alleging interference with the peaceful possession of the property. However, the petitioners argued that the documents produced by the respondent had not been adequately proven and questioned their authenticity. To establish this, they filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC seeking to summon officials from the BBMP and Grama Panchayath, who had reportedly issued these documents. However, the Trial Court rejected this application.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court.
The petitioners argued that the summoning of officials from BBMP and Grama Panchayath would be absolutely necessary to prove their contention that Exs.P11 to P23 are not genuine documents.
In response, the respondent's counsel supported the trial court's decision, asserting that the burden of proving the case falls on the plaintiff, especially in a suit for a mere injunction.
The Court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the Trial Court's decision. In a suit for a bare injunction, where the respondent was seeking to prevent interference with possession rather than claiming title, it was the plaintiff's responsibility to prove lawful possession.
Following this it noted that the plaintiff had submitted documents as evidence, and their authenticity and legality would be assessed during the final disposal.
“In the course of trial admittedly the respondent/plaintiff has marked exhibits P11 to P23, documents said to have been issued by the BBMP or the Grama Panchayath of Tanisandra. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the documents in accordance with law and it is for the Trial Court, at the time of final disposal, to evaluate and to appreciate the documents and its genuineness.”
Then it held that the documents produced by the plaintiff are to be proved by the plaintiff and if the plaintiff fails to prove the documents, he fails in the suit. The Court held that the requirement to summon officials from BBMP and Grama Panchayath was unnecessary for the defendants to disprove the documents or prove their own case.
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Chandra & Others AND G. Krishnappa.
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 19003 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Date of Order: 02-08-2023
Appearance: Advocate Chandra Sekhar B for Petitioners.
Advocate K. Sreedhar for Respondent.