PUTTAMMA Vs. H D DHARMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the Judgment and Decree dismissing the suit for injunction, confirmed by the first appellate Court in the appeal.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: THE parties are referred to as they were referred in the original proceedings, for the sake of convenience. THE appellants herein are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff and the respondents are the legal representatives of deceased defendant before the trial Court. Deceased plaintiff instituted the suit before the trial Court, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the deceased defendant from causing any obstruction to their peaceful possession enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Deceased plaintiff and the deceased defendant are the brothers. THEy owned the land bearing Sy. No.80, measuring 6 acres 90 cents. In the partition mahazar, which was held on 26.01.1967 under Ex.D1, 2 acres and 40 cents of the land was given to the share of deceased plaintiff and the remaining 4 acres 50 cents was given to the share of deceased defendant. Deceased plaintiff claims that an area measuring 12 x 600 ft. was kept as a passage in between these two lands and as deceased defendant caused obstruction to the use of this passage, he instituted the present suit, seeking injunction.

(3.) THE trial Court framed the issues and deceased plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and a witness P.W.2 and documents Exs.P1 to 5 were got marked in their evidence. Deceased defendant was examined as D.W.1 and a witness D.W.2 and document Ex.D1 was got marked in their evidence. During the pendency of the suit, a Court Commissioner was appointed and his report has been marked as Ex.C1 and the sketch as Ex.C2. THE trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, deceased plaintiff's legal representatives have approached the first appellate Court in R.A. No.14/2000 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 12.11.2009. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the present appeal has been filed.