C.RAMAIAH Vs. CHALUVAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 28/6/2017 passed in R.A.No.263/2012 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court' for short) by which, the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 10/1/2011 passed in O.S.No.75/2005 on the file of Principal II Civil Judge (Jn.Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short).

(2.) The above suit in O.S.No.75/2005 is filed by Sri. Chaluva Murthy-plaintiff against Sri.C.Ramaiah-the defendant seeking relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is his case that plaintiff and the defendant are the brothers, being sons of one late Marichannappa. That in the year 1976 there was a partition between the sons of Marichannappa as per the partition deed dtd. 15/6/1984. That on the said date of partition deed, land in Sy.No.83/1 was divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant each being entitled for 30 guntas of land. As such, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property which is described in the plaint as plaint schedule property. That defendant had filed an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, which was allowed and occupancy rights were granted in favour of defendant in respect of suit schedule property. That pursuant to said order, defendant cannot claim exclusive right and possession over the suit schedule property. That the defendant attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.

(3.) That defendant who appeared in response to summons, filed written statement and admitted the relationship between them and also admitted the plea with regard to the partition that had taken place between them in the year 1976. However, he denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the defendant that he had made an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal in respect of suit schedule property. That as per the order dtd. 26/10/2004 occupancy rights was granted in his favour in his individual capacity. Pursuant to the said order defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner. That he has made improvement upon the land. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.