YASHODAMMA, W/O. ASWATHAPPA AND SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O B.N. CHIKKANNA MAJOR Vs. SRI S.G. SUBRAMANYA ACHAR, S/O. LATE CHIKKAGURAPPACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2011 in R.A. No. 27/2009 passed by the District Judge, Fast Track Court -VII, Doddaballapur in so far as it relates to declaring the Respondent/Plaintiff as the owner of suit property.

(2.) APPELLANTS are the Defendants and Respondent is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this judgment for convenience the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.

(3.) BEFORE the Trial Court, Plaintiff examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got: marked Exs. P1 to P18. Defendants examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and got marked Exs. D1 to D36 The Trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that Plaintiffs have failed to prove and establish their title and possession over the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the Trial Court held that the Defendants are in possession of the plaint: schedule property. Consequently under the judgment dated 18.12.2008, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court filed an appeal in R.A. No. 27/2009. The first Appellate Court after hearing arguments framed the following points for its consideration: I. Whether the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Doddahallapur was justified in holding that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the title over the suit schedule property? II. Whether the learned Prl. Civil judge & J.M.F.C. Doddaballapura was justified in holding that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the possession over the suit schedule property and the alleged interference? III. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Pri. Civil judge calls for interference? IV. What order?