SAKAMMA Vs. CHIKKANNAGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case under consideration in this appeal are not disputed. The correctness of the findings of the Courts below on questions of fact is not challenged. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff was the daughter of the deceased uncle of the defendant-respondent, who is the present holder of the Pateli Office of Chilaganahalli, a village in Koratagere Taluk. The property in dispute was in possession of defendant's uncle Kallurappa and after his death it has been in the possession of his daughter the plaintiff and her son for over 15 years by virtue of a gift made by her father under a registered deed, dated 22-1-1935. The plaintiff filed the suit under appeal for a permanent, injunction restraining defendant 1 the Patel and defendant 2 his son, from interfering with her peaceful possession. Her son who is her legal representative is the appellant. It was contended by the defendants that the property is a pateli-inam land, that it belongs to defendant 1 and that the suit is not cognizable by a civil Court.

(2.) The point for consideration is whether the plaintiff and her son the appellant after her death have been in lawful possession of the property and are entitled to the injunction prayed for, or whether defendant 1 is entitled to be in possession of that property as the holder of the village office, and the suit in a civil Court is barred. Section 5, Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, is as follows:

(3.) It is, however, Section 16, Village Offices Act that takes away the jurisdiction of civil Courts to some extent, and it runs as follows: