CHIKKA BOREGOWDA Vs. C RAJANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is coming up for admission, the learned counsels, after arguing the matter for substantial length of time would submit that the matter requires to be remanded for the following reasons:

(2.) The dispute is regarding identification of block Nos.8 and 9 in Sy.No.91 on the one hand and block Nos.4 and 5 in Sy.No.91 on the other hand. The plaintiffs claim that they are the owners of block Nos.8 and 9 in Sy.No.91 of Keragodu Village, Mandya Taluk and District, while the defendants claim to be the owner of Block No.4 and 5 of Sy.No.91. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration and injunction against the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants who have no manner of right or title with respect to block Nos.8 and 9 of Sy.No.91 were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same which belongs to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants having entered appearance and filing the written statement, contended that they were the absolute owners of Block No.4 and 5 of Sy.No.91 having purchased the same from the previous vendor. It is noticeable that on an earlier occasion, the First Appellate Court had remanded the matter back to the trial court for the specific purpose of appointing a Court Commissioner to identify the properties and to implead the Forest Department as defendant, since it was also contended by the defendants that a portion of the property belonged to the Forest Department. It was an admitted fact that on remand, the plaintiff impleaded the Forest Department. However the department was placed exparte. An application was also made by the plaintiff to appoint a Court Commissioner to survey the properties and identify the boundaries. However, it was observed by the First Appellate Court that the said exercise proved futile. It was observed by the Trial Court in its judgment that unfortunately the plaintiff has not taken steps for appointment of Court Commissioner to ascertain the suit schedule properties and to locate where exactly suit schedule properties are situated and whether the properties are within forest area or not.

(3.) After hearing the leaned counsel for sufficient length of time, this Court is of the opinion that unless and until the Court Commissioner is appointed and the boundaries are identified, the dispute cannot be resolved. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is essential that the authorities of the Survey and Settlement and the Forest Department are required to jointly survey the properties and fix the boundaries. Unless this exercise is undertaken the issue brought before the Court cannot be decided.