A VENKATESHA Vs. GANGANAPALLT RAMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Parties to this appeal will be referred to by the rank and title they had in the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property and to declare that the defendant was in permissive possession of the hut and also possession and mesne profits both past and future. It was his case that he purchased from P. W. 1, 24 guntas of dry agricultural land situated in Lakkavalli village of Tarikere Taluk; that the land purchased by him was in Survey No. 120/2; that it was bounded on the East and West by road while on north and South by adjoining Survey Numbers 1.21 and 120/2 respectively; that his vendor had retained 11 guntas of land out of the share that had fallen to him at a partition and therefore, those 11 guntas was actually the boundary on the eastern side of the plaintiff's land. It was his further averment in the plaint that he had permitted the defendant and her husband to construct a temporary structure and reside on the land. However, the defendant was refusing to vacate his land inspite of a legal notice which was refused. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by stating that she built the house some 18 years prior to the filing of the suit and that she had spent Rs. 5,000-00 for construction of the same. It is not a temporary hut but a permanent hut with brick walls and Mangalore tile roofing. She further asserted that the plaintiff did not purchase the suit property much less was he in possession, that she did not know who the owner of the property was; that she had been living in that hut being in possession adverse to the interest of the owner since 20 years and therefore she had title in herself having perfected it by adverse possession and in that circumstance the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for and the suit may be dismissed.