AJJIKUTTIRA MANDANNA Vs. AJJIKUTTIRA KUSHALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the lower appellate court and the trial court. In the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to by the ranks assigned to them in the trial court.

(2.) the respondent-plaintiff approached the court of the munsiff, virajpet, in o.s. No. 7 of 1983 seeking inter alia the following reliefs: (i) that he be declared the owner of s. No. 138/4 of konageri village in virajpet taluk; and (ii) that the defendant be directed to deliver possession of b schedule property measuring 1.15 acres which had been encroached by him in s. No. 138/4. The defendant resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that s. No. 138/4 in its entirety did not belong to the plaintiff. He also denied that the land in the said survey number had been inherited by the plaintiff from his father. He denied that he encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. It may be noticed at this stage that the plaintiff had left his land uncultivated for a long time and on discovering encroachment had orally requested the defendant to vacate the encroached land. The defendant having failed to do so, the plaintiff got issued a lawyer's notice and thereafter filed the suit with the reliefs set out above.

(3.) on such pleadings the trial court framed as many as six issues and one additional issue. They are as follows: 1) whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner and is in possession of plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties? 2) whether the plaintiff proves that defendant has encroached upon 1.15 acres of land of plaintiff in sy. No. 138/4? 3) whether the defendant proves that he has prefected his title to the suit 'b' schedule property by adverse possession? 4) whether the defendant proves that he has made improvement in 'b' schedule property worth Rs. 40,000/- and the plaintiff is liable to pay the same? 5) whether the suit valuation is correct and court-fee paid adequate? 6) whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? Addl. Issue: whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property was inherited from his father?