SHIVANNA, S/O. SANNA HANUMAJJARA RANGAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. S.R. KRISHNAPPA S/O. SANNA RANGAPPA AND SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE S.R. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were the defendants and the 1st respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 7/1998 in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hosadurga. Suit was instituted, to pass judgment and decree of declaration, possession, mandatory and perpetual injunctions. The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit. 6 issues were raised for trial and determination. For the plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3 deposed, through whom Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. For the defendants, DWs 1 to 5 deposed, through whom Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. Considering the rival contentions and the record of the case, suit was partly decreed and the claim of the plaintiff with regard to ownership in respect of the suit property was dismissed. However, plaintiff was declared as owner to a portion of the property bearing Khata No. 111 of Doddaghatta Village within the boundaries mentioned in a sale deed dated 11.01.1913 i.e., Ex.P2. Plaintiff was directed to ascertain the exact measurement and boundaries of his property by filing an application before the survey authorities. Defendants were restrained from interfering with the suit property of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, some of the defendants filed R.A.No. 290/2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Hoialkere. The lower appellate Court, having heard the arguments, raised 3 points for consideration and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

(2.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the claim of the plaintiff i.e., the 1st respondent herein, is similar to that of the appellant in RSA No. 955/2003, which appeal was allowed vide Judgment dated 13.04.2011 and the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court for consideration and decision and hence, this appeal may also be remanded to the lower appellate Court for decision in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submitted that, the case of the appellants has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and also the lower appellate Court Judge and that the Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court does not conform to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC.

(3.) I have perused the record.