SUBBANNA, S/O. SIDDAPPA Vs. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. MAHADEVAPPA G.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the defendant. The suit is filed by the plaintiff - respondent for bare injunction in respect of property, which he claims to have purchased pursuant to Exhibit P.3. The total extent of land which the plaintiff -respondent has purchased pursuant to a sale deed dated 13.10.1980 is 3 acres 21 guntas. The plaintiff would further aver that towards the northern side of the suit schedule property, the land of the defendant which measures 18 guntas is situated. Since there was interference by the defendant, the present suit is filed for bare injunction.

(2.) THE defendant enters appearance and files written statement inter alia contending that he has purchased the land pursuant to a sale deed from one Lingappa. It is his case that during the lifetime of one Subbappa, the land, measuring 8 acres and 1 gunta was divided among his sons Madappa and Siddappa. Madappa got an extent of 3 acres 21 guntas on the northern side and the defendant's father was given 4 acre 20 guntas in addition to 1 gunta of kharab. Hence, in the circumstances, the question of granting a decree for injunction does not arise.

(3.) I have perused the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Apparently, both the Courts below have relied on Exhibit P.3 and other records to come to a conclusion that indeed the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. To my mind, that is a question of fact. It is no doubt true that during the pendency of the appeal, applications were moved under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of additional documents. The said applications have been rejected. To my mind, rightly so, inasmuch as they are relatable only to the proceedings before the competent authority under the Land Revenue Act. I am of the view that no substantial question of taw arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal stands disposed of.