ACHANNA SHETTY Vs. KAMALA SHEDTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Defendants 1, 2 and 3 and is directed agaipst the judgment and decree dated 10-1-1973 made by the Add1. Civil Judge, Udipi, S. Kanara, in A. S. No. 18|1966, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-12-65 made by the Munsiff, Karkal, in, O.S- No. 560/1964 pn his file.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that they were the owners of the properties and for an injunction against the defendants as consequential relief. The defendants, according tot the plaintiffs, had no right title or interest to the suit properties. The defendants, however, contended that the 2nd defendant has right in regard to 10 cents of land in the southern portion and the 2nd defendant was a tenant under defendants 3 and 4 in regard to 95 cents of land in the northern side. The trial Court raised the following issues:

(3.) The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record answered issues 2, 7 and 11 in the affirmative and issues 4,5,6 and 12 in the negative. Further, it answered the first part of the second issue in the affirmative and under the second part it found that the damages due were Rs. 21 to the plaintiff. In that view, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Udipi and the learned Civil Judge, by his judgment and decree dated 18-4-67 allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.S.A. No. 886167 before this Court and this Court by its, judgment and decree dated 12th Jan. 1972 allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge and remanded; the matter to the first Appellate Court with a direction to follow the procedure under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and then to proceed to judgment. Thereafter, the appeal was taken up and was re-heard and the learned Civil Judge who re-heard the appeal framed the following points as arising for consideration: