M SOMAIAH S/O. LATE SRI MUNISHAMAPPA, NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AND VENKATESHAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA Vs. SRI. KRISHNAPPAA SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS in R.A.34/2007 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Bangalore Rural District aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt. 11.12.2009 reversing the judgment and decree dt. 8.11.2006 in 0.3.101/2001 of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hoskote dismissing the suit have presented this second appeal.

(2.) RESPONDENTS instituted O.S. 101/2001 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/ appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to restrain them from cutting the eucalyptus trees thereon asserting that plaintiff -Krishnappa since deceased purchased the immovable property measuring 35 guntas in Sy.No. 62/1 of Jadigenahalli and the revenue records stood in his name having paid land revenue. while alleging that the appellant/defendants were interfering with the plaintiffs possession and are trying to cut and remove the standing eucalyptus trees. The appellants arraigned as defendants, on notice, entered appearance and resisted the suit by filing written statement imeralia contending that ever since 15.11.1976 they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property when the plaintiff for want of money intended to sell the suit schedule property to one Munirudrappa of Jadigenahalli for Rs. 3,000/ -, on advice of elders, the father of the defendants paid Rs. 3,000/ - to the plaintiff, who in turn mortgaged the suit schedule property and handed over all original title deed with a condition that if the plaintiff wanted to secure return of the property, he should redeem the mortgage after 25 years by paying its market value.

(3.) THE plaintiff having carried the judgment and decree in R.A.34/2007, the lower Appellate Court formulated issues for consideration and having re -appraised the material on record and evidence both oral and documentary held that the opinion of the trial court was not just and legal since the mere admission of the signature of Krishnappa and marking the same as Ex.D1 on the agreement, coupled with an indisputable fact that Krishnappa purchased the suit schedule property from one Venkatagiriyappa on 27.12.1957 and the revenue records stood in the name of the said Krishnappa, which when not rebutted by evidence to the contrary, a presumption over the validity of the entries arose in law under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and accordingly disbelieved the entries in revenue records, Exs.D2 to D5, recording the name of Munishamappa. who was admittedly dead, as the person in possession to allow the appeal and decree the suit.