(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the present second appeal. His suit was partly decreed by the trial judge. But in appeal before the appellate court, the appellate judge has allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This is now his second appeal brought up before this court.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that there has been an open plot of land measuring 22 yds x 19 yds. at Nagur village. Gulbarga, Taluka. It is his case that it is in his possession for more than 40 years and after obtaining permission for construction on the plot in the year 1349 F. from Tahsildar certain construction was put up by the plaintiff. It was further the case of the plaintiff that later his brother's son Shivalingappa has constructed a house on the northern side of the plot with permission of the plaintiff. But defendant 1 started proceeding with the 2nd defendant to auction the plot. In spite of the objection by the plaintiff, the plot was ultimately put up for auction and defendant 3 appears to have purchased the plot The sale in his favour anpears to have been confirmed. The plaintiff therefore filed a suit for a declaration and also for permanent injunction.
(3.) It is unnecessary to consider the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a declaration as the decree passed denying the plaintiff the declaration sought. was not challenged, with the result that it has become final. The only question which has to be determined was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for a permanent injunction again the defendants, in the manner in which it has been ordered by the learned judge, in para 27 of his judgment.