DEVAMMANNI AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the legal representatives of the original defendant in O.S. No. 13/1984 on the file of the Munsiff at Malavalli is directed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction in the alternative for possession, in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.

(2.) THE subject matter of the suit is the country tailed house bearing VP. No. 414 situated in Mallikyathanahalli Bluff Post.

(3.) THE sole defendant appeared before the trial Court and contested the suit. He denied the case of the plaintiff, He contended that 1.00 acre of land was granted to him in Survey No. 369 of Belkawadi Village under Dharkasth and the grant certificate was also issued by the Tahsildar, Mallikyathanahalli, to him on 26.6.1961. According to him, the property mentioned in the suit schedule falls within the extent of 1.00 acre of land granted to him. He further contended that since the plaintiffs father interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land granted to him, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 2156/1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Mandya against the father of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction and on the advise of the elders as also the panchayathdars, the plaintiffs father agreed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land granted, to the defendant, therefore, the said suit was withdrawn on 30.3.1965. He further contended that once again, since the plaintiffs father interfered with the peaceful, possession and enjoyment of the property, he again filed suit in O.S. No. 152/1978 on the file of the Munsiff, Malavalli, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 1.00 acre of land in block No. 74 of Survey Mo. 369, Beiakawadi Village granted to him. The said suit came to be dismissed for default on 30.5.1.979. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 of CPC praying for restoration of the suit and the said Miscellaneous case was also dismissed. It was further alleged that during the pendency of the said appeal, since the plaintiffs father died, an application was filed for bringing the legal representatives of the respondent therein. The application came to be dismissed, as such the suit in O.S. No. 152/1978 filed by the defendant against the father of the plaintiff was not decided on merits. He contended that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as such, the plaintiff has no manner of right title or interest over the same, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.