NAGENDRAPPA Vs. RANGANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Review Petition is filed by the defendant in the suit and the appellant in R. S. A. No. 23/1993. The above second appeal was referred against the judgment and decree in R. A. No. 22/1988 reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court in O. S. No. 132/1986. The suit was one for declaration of ownership of the property and for injunction restraining the defendant from interference of peaceful possession. The suit was decreed and even the learned munsiff has passed an order "in view of this undertaking given by the defendants before the Hon'ble High Court, the defendants are directed to remove building put up on the portion of suit site encroached by defendant No. 1. "

(2.) THE case was that the plaintiff's father Settappa purchased the suit property from its owner Boraiah under an unregistered stamp paper sale deed dated 10. 10. 1955 for cash consideration of Rs. 25. 00 accompanied by delivery of possession and the said Boraiah got the schedule property for his share at a partition which took place between himself and his elder brother Chikkappa. After the death of his father, the plaintiff as his undivided son succeeded to the suit schedule property. Katha stands in the name of the plaintiff. When there was disturbance in the enjoyment of the property, the suit came to be filed. The first defendant resisted the suit contending that he is the owner of the site bearing H. No. 28 of Harogere village measuring East-West 8 yards and North-South 9 yards, but the plaintiff has given wrong boundaries and claimed the suit site as his own. Thus the suit was resisted.

(3.) THE Trial Court on the basis of documents produced while framing as many as 6 issues, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and he is in lawful possession of the said property. It is also held that the boundaries of the said property as given in the plaint is correct. An appeal was filed by the defendant in RA No. 22/1988 The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed holding that there is no proof of exclusive possession of the respective portions. The second appeal was admitted on the following question of law.