SATISH Vs. MALAGOUDA RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 4/8/2011 passed by the FTC-I, Chikodi, in R.A.No.76/2008 wherein the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dtd. 16/4/2008 passed by the Addl. Civi Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chikodi, in O.S.NO.126/2003 was set aside. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

(2.) In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties are addressed in accordance with their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

(3.) It was contended in the plaint that plaintiff No.2 Baburao is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff No.1 is his son and cultivating the lands. The father of the plaintiff No.2, Balagouda died in the year 1974 leaving behind his son i.e., plaintiff No.2. The mutation was effected in favour of plaintiff No.2. Thereafter the plaintiffs were cultivating the suit schedule properties by paying the land revenue to the concerned authorities. The plaintiffs are growing sugarcane, groundnut and other crops and supply sugarcane to the factory. The defendant No.1 Malagouda is no way concerned to the suit land. The defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendants No.2 to 4, submitted a false varadi and got entered their name as per in M.E.No.13052 of Boragaon village and it was challenged by the plaintiff No.2 in RTS/AP No.226/1996-97 and the said appeal was allowed on 20/11/2000 by canceling the previous mutation entry. The defendant No.1 preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner in RB/RTA/16/00-01 and the said revision was dismissed on 20/3/2002 and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi. Accordingly, the name of defendant No.1 was deleted on 4/7/2002. The defendants having no right, title and interest over the suit lands, are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction.