CHANNAMMA AND ORS. Vs. SHIVALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the defendant before the trial court.

(2.) THE parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. It was the plaintiffs case that he was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing New No. 259(01d No. 256) and assessment No. 312, situated at Halagevaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring east to west 99 feet and north to south 15 feet, which was more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. It was claimed that originally, the property belonged to one Venkatapathaiah who sold the same on 14.12.1928 to one Nanjundappa. The said Najundappa is said to have sold the property to Ganganna and Kempanna. Kempanna is said to have sold the property to one Chennamma, wife of Puttachari. After the death of Chennamma, khata was said to have been changed in the name of Puttachari, her husband. The said Puttachari is said to have sold the property to the defendant on 5.10.1967. The defendant is said to have resold the property to Puttachari on 9.10.1968. Puttachari is said to have sold the property to one Shivanna on 13.11.1968. Shivanna, in turn, had sold the property to Basavaraj on 22.5.1972 and Basavaraj sold the property to the plaintiff on 1.4.1991 under a registered sale deed. Khata was changed in the name of the plaintiff The plaintiff was thereafter paying taxes in respect of the property.

(3.) IT was also claimed that originally, the property mentioned in the plaint belonged to one Venkatapathaiah and that it was not correct to state that the said Venkatapathaiah sold the property on 14.12.1928 to one Nanjundaiah. The suit property was actually sold to Gurusiddaiah, who was the uncle of the defendant. The property purchased by Nanjundappa is entirely different. It was also contended that the several sale deeds, on which the plaintiff has placed reliance would indicate that the boundaries are not consistent. Further, that his claim as to there being an old house on the suit property which was demolished was also incorrect and false. The plaint averment to the effect that he had put up construction was also denied. It was admitted however that a suit in O.S. No. 6887/1991 was filed and the court had dismissed that suit, but it had also held that the defendant had not proved his possession over the suit property. And there was no pleading on the part of the plaintiff, who was the defendant in that suit, to the effect that he had put up any foundation. The defendant however, on the other hand, claimed that he was the owner of a site formerly called kanada patte hola measuring east to west 50 feet and north to south 15 feet and he had indicated the boundaries as follows: