PRABHA NATARAJ, W/O C.V. NATARAJ Vs. N.S. RANGEGOWDA, S/O LATE N.S. NINGEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/A NO. 893, 14TH CROSS, MAHALAXMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-55 AND MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE-570023, REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.No. 63/2010 dated 8.4.2011 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 233/1997 dated 22.12.2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Mysore. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents are defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule site. According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the site bearing Nos. 1 and 2 having katha No. 209/68/2 situated at Nachanahallipalya Village, Mysore Taluk, carved out in the land bearing Sy. No. 28/2 measuring 60 ft. x 60 ft., having purchased the same from Sri. G.C. Kempa Thimmaiah, G.C. Moodala Giriyappa and G.C. Nagendra under a deed of sale dated 6.9.1991 Since the date of the purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The first defendant by taking undue advantage of the plaintiff being a resident of Delhi without having any manner of right, title or authority and in collusion with the local authorities has started construction on the plaint schedule property.

(2.) THE first defendant has filed the written statement contending that he is the owner of the site bearing No. 769 situated at 'D' Block, Nachanahalli, Mysore, measuring east to west 35 ft. and north to south 50 ft., and bounded on north by site No. 772, south by road, east by site No. 770 and west by site No. 768. The allotment of the site was made by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board ('CITB' for short) {now Mysore Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short)} on 10.10.1984 for consideration of Rs. 11,660.40 ps. He has paid the entire amount to the CITB and thereafter obtained possession certificate on 5.2.1996. He has also got the katha of the property transferred to his name in the property register of the Mysore City Corporation. He has also paid the enhanced value of the site as per the demand made by the second defendant in a sum of Rs. 29,866/ - on 6.1.1995. Thereafter, he has filed an application for grant of licence for construction of house on the above property and the Mysore City Corporation has sanctioned the plan on 26.2.1997. He has constructed the structure according to the said plan. He has completed the construction on the above said property except the minor works. He has legal and valid title to the said property. The plaintiff appears to be confused in identifying her property. The first defendant's property is different from the one mentioned in the plaint. The dimensions of the two properties and the boundaries are different.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves her title to the suit property? (ii) Does she further prove that the defendant No. 1 has illegally put up construction over the suit schedule site? (iii) Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought? (v) What order or what decree?