SOMALINGAPPA Vs. ANJANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals filed against the judgement and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bellary in RA No. 15/94 and RA 16/94 arising out of O. S. No. 168/85 and O. S. No. 286/88 respectively on the file of Prl. Munsiff, Bellary. The appellants in both the cases are the defendants in O. S. No. 168/85 filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 168/85 filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property described as a house site measuring 25x15 pictorially described in the rough sketch accompanying the plaint and form part of CTS No. 373/3a/1a/2/b in Block No. XXIV, Ward No. XXII, Devinagar, Bellary City. The plaintiffs claims title to the property by virtue of entries in the Municipality records. The suit site was originally granted by Municipality to one Thippanna in the year 1962 from whom one Siddalinganagouda purchased in the year 1971 under registered sale deed Ex. P. 2. One Narasimhappa purchased the suit property from Siddalinganagouda under Ex. P. 3 under registered sale deed in the year 1978. The plaintiffs purchased the suit site from Narasimhappa under Ex. P. 1 on 29-5-1985, two days after filing of the suit. It is said that the erstwhile owner Narasimhappa had mortgaged the property in favour of plaintiff. The mortgage deed is not produced. According to plaintiffs, the defendant had encroached in the portion of the suit property to an extent of 15x25 put an hutment about three years prior to suit, therefore, on the strength of title, the plaintiff seek relief of declaration of title and possession and also seek injunction against the defendant not to repair or put up any permanent structure on the suit site. The defendants filed the written statement denying the title of the plaintiff contending that the defendants are in possession of the premises since the year 1969 by putting up hutment and paying tax to the Municipality. The defendants also contend that the property is a Government land and they are in adverse possession of the property. A defence is also taken that the area has been declared as a slum area. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) DURING the pendency of O. S. No. 168/85, the defendants filed a suit in O. S. No. 286/88. The plaint averments are reproduction of the written statement in O. S. No. 168/85 and the written of the defendants in the said suit is the reproduction of the plaint in O. S. No. 168/85. Both the appellants and the respondents have filed suits separately. However, for convenient reference, the appellants would be hereinafter described as defendants and the respondents 1 to 3 would be described as plaintiffs.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 168/85 rejected the contention of plaintiffs title to the property and dismissed the suit. The suit filed by the appellants in O. S. No. 286/88 came to be allowed. The plaintiffs filed two appeals against the judgement and decree is O. S. No. 168/85 and O. S. No. 286/88 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bellary. In appeal, the appellant court set aside the judgement and decree of the trial court in O. S. No. 168/85 and O. S. 286/88 upheld the title of the plaintiffs and also granted relief of possession and thus allowed both the appeals filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, the Second Appeals are filed.