GHALEPPA Vs. GUNDEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The parties to this appeal will be referred to by the position assigned to them in the trial Court.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed O. S. 74/68 in the Court of the Munsiff at Bidar seeking declaration of title to the suit-well claiming that the same was situated in Sy. No. 277 of Mirkhar village, Bidar Taluk; that he was compelled to approach the Court for a declaration inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, had directed the Electricity Board not to give electricity to him unless he obtained a declaration from the competent Civil Court regarding his title to the well. It. was the plaintiff's case that he had purchased the land on 22-1-1968 by a registered sale deed from the previous owner one Sangramappa who was the undisputed owner of Sy. No. 277; that since the purchase in 1968 he was using the well water for cultivating a part of the land by irrigation; that he had, in fact, installed an oil engine to pump out the water; that defendants' 1 and 2 had now set up a claim claiming the well situate in Sy. No. 278 as belonging to them. Therefore, the suit for declaration and injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his right to the well, its possession and use of its water.

(3.) Defendants 1, 2 and 3 resisted the suit mainly on the ground that the well was situated in Sy. No. 278 and 'the plaintiff's vendor being an influential person had made a fictitious sale and set up the plaintiff to file the suit in order to claim the well. They also pleaded that the plaintiff being a wealthy and influential person had installed the oil engine in the suit well by force; that the 1st defendant had given a complaint to the Police in that behalf; that defendants 4 and 5 had no concern in Sy. No. 278 and the well in dispute and that they are mere supporters of defendant-1. The defendants denied the accuracy of the plaint-map showing the well as situated in Sy. No. 277. However, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff had applied for supply of electrical energy to the suit well to the Electricity Board. The defendants further alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff being an influential man got an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14-2-1971 in the absence of the defendants, directing the Electricity Board to get the exact location of the well determined by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records who submitted a report on 22-8-1968 along with the map showing that the well is situated in Sy. No. 278. Accepting that report, the Electricity Board gave electric connection to defendant1 that the map and village map relied upon by the plaintiff were incorrect; that the well was situated in Sy. No. 277 and that they were owners. Therefore, they prayed that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings summarised as above, the trial Court framed the following two issues for trial: -