Venkataravanamma on 30.04.1993, who in turn sold it to the plaintiff on 16.04.2004. The plaintiff claimed that he was placed in possession of the suit property and he was in possession as on date of the suit. He claimed that the khatha of the suit property stood in his name and he was paying the tax in respect of the suit property to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was enclosed by a compound, which was 4 feet tall and a mudwalled structure with asbestos sheet roof existed on the suit property. The plaintiff claimed that he desired to heighten the compound wall to over 5 feet and for this purpose, had engaged a contractor. At that stage, the defendants began interfering with the construction. The plaintiff claimed that some of the defendants claimed that they were relatives of those who were earlier concerned with the suit property and they demanded that a portion of the property be conveyed to them to stop the interference. Since the plaintiff did not heed to the demands, the defendants escalated their interference through their henchmen. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants have no right, title or interest and that their attempt to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff was
