KHENIANNA SHIVAPPA GAJAKHOSH Vs. SAYYADSAB ALLAUDDIUSAB KALIGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the 6th defendant's appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

(2.) 1st respondent-plaintiff Sayyadsab Allauddinsab-Kaligar brought original suit 249 of 1982 in the Court of the Munsiff at Lakshmeswar, Dharwad District. He prayed for a declaration that suit property situated at Lakshmcswar, bearing CTS No. 4322 was his and that he was the absolute owner thereof and his title thereto may be declared as well as for possession of that property from the defendants. He alleged that on 17-9-1959, one Khmeanna had sold the suit site indicated by the rough sketch annexed to the plaint and marked by alphabets 'ABCD'. On the same day, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit site. Plaintiff had been enjoying as vahivaldar of the same and entry was duly made in the Town Municipal office at Lakshmcswar in regard to the transfer of properly. Plaintiff constructed a room as per the rough sketch indicated by letters AEFG facing cast. Plaintiff bagan to live in the house constructed and he did the business of guild!ng (tinning) domestie utcncils. In order to pursue the profession, plaintiff and his son were compelled to leave the house, go about searching for work from house to house. On one such occasion, defendants 1 and 2 unaulhoriscdly and illegally entered the suit property built by the plaintiffs on the site purchased by them and kept ihcjilaintiff out of his own house despite his rcquesfto handover possession of the property. After that event, plaintiff went from place lo place pursuing the profession and defendants refused to handover the properly back to the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit.

(3.) Defendants appeared before the Courtand filed their written statement. In the written statcmcnl, they contended lhat defendants 1 and 2 on 11-2-1980, entered into an agreement and Khcmanna and his son for purchase of properly at Rs. 1,000-. Khemappa and his son had received Rs. 500/- as advance money and as per tholerms and conditions, the defendant had to pay Rs. 1000/- within one year and get the sale deed registered from the dale of agreement to sell. Defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of property and making vahivat of the same. They denied'that ihey were trespassers in the suit property. The plaintiff never demanded vacant possession from them. Defendants 1 and 2 had Janatha houses and as such they vacated the suit house. Hence there was no cause of action against them.