BOTTANGADA M.ANNAIAH Vs. MUTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 15/9/2006, passed in O.S.No.50/2000 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Virajpet, has filed this appeal.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under: Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Jamma bane land bearing Sy.No.47/23B measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Theralu Village, Srimangala Nad, Virajpet Taluk. The said land was devolved on the plaintiff by way of inheritance under oral partition between the members of the family of the plaintiff along with other sharer, Madappa. After partition, Madappa took possession of the same and fenced the suit schedule property. Madappa died and after his death, plaintiff started cultivating the suit land. Further, the plaintiff submitted an application before the Tahsildar for demarcation by survey. The Tahsildar after verification and after demarcation, assigned the survey number as 47/23B. The defendants who are the adjacent land owners on the northern side of the suit schedule property, by taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff during 2nd week of December 1999, unlawfully trespassed into the suit schedule property by removing fence laid by the plaintiff on the northern side and by force encroached the whole of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff protested the illegal act of the defendants and lodged a complaint before the police at Srimangala on 16/12/1999. The police issued an endorsement directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their rights. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to vacate and handover the schedule property. The defendants gave reply to the said legal notice denying the alleged encroachment of the suit schedule property. Hence the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit.