SUBBARAYA Vs. GURAPPA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the concurrent findings and conclusions rendered in the judgment and decree dtd. 18/10/2001 passed in O.S.No.258/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Periyapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and the judgment and decree dtd. 14/12/2011 passed in R.A.No.53/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court').

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the trial court.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the above suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property being land in Sy.No.35/06 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Thammadahalli village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, on the premise that he had purchased the same under a registered Deed of Sale dtd. 16/10/1974 executed by Sri.Ramaiah, S/o.Krishnaiah for himself and his minor sons, viz., Krishna and Ramachandra and also his sister Smt.Ramamma, daughter of Krishnaiah. That the defendant was also one of the witnesses to the said Deed of Sale. That defendants without having any right, title or possession over the schedule property had filed regular appeal in R.A.No.36/1999-2000 before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur, challenging the revenue entries, whereby name of the defendant was entered by deleting the name of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had also preferred Revision Petition in R.P.No.29/2000-01 before the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.34752-34753/2007 were filed before this Court, wherein this Court by order dtd. 5/3/2002, had directed to file a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate remedy with respect to title and possession of the property. That by taking advantage of illegal entries, the defendant was causing interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and even denied the title of the plaintiff which constrained the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.