DASA RAO Vs. THUNGABHADRA BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.6.1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary, in R.A.64/72 on his file dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.4.72, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Hospet, in O S No. 208 ot 1970 on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit to restrain defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit lands namely S. No. 382 and 383 of Venkatapur village. He averred that the said lands were leased to him by the 1st defendant in the suit through its Executive Engineer by an order dated 21.1.64 for a period of one year. After the expiry of the lease he remained in possession of the suit lands as a tenant holding over upto the year 1968 In spite of it, defendants asked him to vacate by a letter dated 25.10.69. According to him he was cultivating the lands lawfully. Hence the defendants had no right to evict him unless in due course of law . Hence, he instituted a suit to restrain the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. The suit was resisted by the defendants. They contended that the suit was not maintainable without notice under S. 80 C.P.C. They denied that he was cultivating the lands. He was not entitled for injunction. The trial Court raised the following issues from the pleadings for its consideration. "I. Whether the suit land is correctly described? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that he lawfully remained in possession of the suit land? 3. Whether he further proves that he has a right to remain in possession of the suit land? 4. If so, is he entitled for injunction? 5. Whether defendants prove that plaintiff is a trespasser over the suit lands? 6. Whether they also prove that the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C.? 7. What decree or order?' The le,arned Munsiff after appreciating the evidence on record answered. Issue Nos. 1, 5, and 6 in the affirmative. He answered issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the negative. In that view the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff went up in appeal before the Civil Judge, Bellary in R. A. No. 64 of 1972 on his file. The learned Civil Judge raised the following points as arising for his consideration in the appeal: "1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit property on the date of the suit? 2 Whether the notice under section 80 C.P.C., is necessary? 3. To what relief? The learned Civil Judge, reassessing the evidence on record answered point No. 1 in the negative. He answered point No. 2 in the affirmative and in that view he dismissed the appeal confirming the decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has instituted the above second appeal before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before me that the courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that S. 80 C.P.C. notice was necessary on the facts of the present case. According to him, a Board cannot be considered as Government. It was at best a corporation. As such, notice under S.80 C.P.C. was not necessary. Hence he submitted that the Courts below were not justified in holding to the contrary. He further submitted that the possession of the present plaintiff was lawful since he held over as a tenant. In that view he submitted that the appeal was entitled to succeed. As against that the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants argued in support of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, confirmed by the first Appellate Court.