POOVANI GOWDA Vs. G BHARATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.238/1995 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Belthangady. The defendants have also challenged the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 20.06.2012 in R.A No.65/2004.

(2.) For the sake of brevity and easy understanding, the parties in this judgment are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. Appellants were defendants while the respondents were plaintiffs before the trial Court.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of O.S.No.238/1995 are that suit schedule A property belonged to husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 8. After the death of plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule A property. The husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 9 were granted occupancy right in an area measuring 3 acres 42 cents in survey No.2/4B of Mogru Village in terms of the order of Land Tribunal dated 08.10.1990. It is contended that husband of defendant No.1 was never in possession of 3 acres 42 cents of land in survey No.2/4B of Mogru Village and the husband of plaintiff No.1 was in possession of 62 cents in Sy.No.2/4B. The order of Land Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.7807/1992 and occupancy right granted to the husband of defendant No.1 was restricted to an extent of 2 acres 80 cents of land in survey No.2/4B. In so far as remaining 62 cents is concerned, grant of occupancy right was quashed. It is stated that during the pendency of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, the husband of defendant No.1 had forcibly taken possession of said 62 cents of land in the year 1978 and later the defendants were in illegal and wrongful possession of the aforesaid property. It is stated that after the order passed in W.P.No.7807/1992, though the defendants conceded to the claim of the plaintiffs, failed to comply and did not hand over the possession. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit for possession of suit schedule A property and for future mesne profit.