KARIGOWDA Vs. NINGEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is plaintiffs second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 7th november, 1984 delivered by additional civil judge, (c.j.m. mandya) in regular appeal no, 93 of 1982 arising from the judgment and decree dated 1-9-1982 delivered by the learned munsiff, nagamangala in 6.s. No. 135 of 1974 dismissing the plaintiffs appeal and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs suit in toto.

(2.) the facts of the case in brief axe that the plaintiff has filedthe aforementioned suit for relief of declaration of title as to the land in dispute mentioned in the schedule to the plaint as well as for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents and their men, servants and agents as well as other persons from interfering in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule land. It has also been prayed that in case the Hon'ble court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of suit, alternatively for possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant and for mesne profits. In other words, the decree for possession may also be granted. The property in dispute has been described in the schedule as under: the property situated at maddenahatti village, devalapura hobli, nagamangala taluk, bearing survey No. 92 (old survey No. 18) 1 acre 05 guntas, asst. 1.45 ps bounded on the east by : 1st defendant's land; west by : chikkamma, mariyamma's land; north by: river; and south by: plaintiffs land.

(3.) the plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner and in possession of the aforementioned land in the schedule on the basis of the grant made by the tahsildar, nagamangala, as per Order No. Gdr 29/66-67 and the grant of saguvali chit (title deed) dated 22-4-1966, the plaintiff claimed to be in possession and enjoyment by raising crops. The plaintiffs case had been that defendants had no title to the property mentioned in the suit schedule. But the respondents according to plaintiffs case without any right were trying to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the land in suit as well as were trying to dispossess the plaintiff from suit land with an intention to grab the said land. The plaintiff has filed the above suit for the reliefs mentioned above. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the plaint allegations. The defendant did not admit the grant of the said land but instead put the defendants to strict proof of the alleged grant and delivery of possession therein. The defendants-respondents denied the allegations to the effect that the defendants were trying to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the land belonging to the plaintiff. The defendants asserted that the defendants have been in the authorised possession of the land measuring 7 guntas i.e., survey No. 18 of maddenahatti village. According to the defendants' case, the revenue authorities prepared a sketch in respect of 17 guntas of land in survey No. 18 in favour of defendant 1 and issued saguvali chit dated 30-5-1967 and on the basis thereof the defendant 1 claims to be the owner thereof in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The defendants asserted so far as this land is concerned, it has been granted to defendant i.e., 17 guntas of land in survey No. 18, the defendant has been always in possession and enjoyment thereof and the plaintiff had not been in possession of the property in question. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain suit for injunction as the plaintiff is not in possession at this stage. It may be mentioned it is after this written statement, the plaint was amended and the relief for possession alternatively is prayed. By filing additional written statement, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief for declaration and possession. As according to the defendants, the plaintiff was not the owner of any portion of suit schedule property nor was entitled to the property. The suit had originally been decreed by the trial court by the judgment and decree dated 14th july, 1979 and from that judgment, it appears the regular first appeal had been filed in regular appeal No. 102 of 1979 and the appeal was allowed. The judgment of the trial court had been set aside and thereafter the case was remanded to the trial court with directions contained in the judgment of the first appellate court i.e., the principal civil judge, mandya, Sri C.N. Aswathanarayana Rao, prior to the remand, and the case being sent for trial, it appears, to the four issues, originally two as well as more issues were framed. The issues read as under: