N. SIDDA REDDY Vs. T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the land to an extent of 01 acre 09 guntas including 01 gunta of phot kharab in Survey No. 47/1B of Kudlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal preferred against the said judgment also came to be dismissed by the learned Judge of the Fast Track Court II of Bangalore Rural District thereby, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the suit land under Ex, P. 1-sale deed dated 22-11-1965 from one Chinnaiah alias Arasappa. His vendor, it was urged, had purchased the same under Ex. P. 22-registered sale deed dated 12-5-1958 from one Muninarasamma. Muninarasamma in turn had purchased the same from her vendor Channappa and Yellappa vide registered sale deed dated 15-5-1957 (Ex. P. 21). Title of Chinnappa and Yellappa was traced under Ex. P. 20-sale deed dated 22-5-1951 from their vendor Sri Kullappa. Kullappa's title in turn was traced to the sale deed dated 10-4-1939 vide Ex. P. 19 whereunder he purchased the land from one Kalu Muniga. It is thus clear from the case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint and in his evidence that the original owner of the land was one Kalu Muniga from whom after it changed various hands finally came to be purchased by the plaintiff as per Ex. P. 1-registered sale deed dated 22-11-1965 from one Channayya alias Arasappa. It has to be noticed, at this stage, that the property purchased by Muniga vide Ex. P. 19-sale deed dated 10-4-1939, the original owner to whom the ultimate title of the land is traced, is described in terms of yards and the survey number of the property has not been mentioned in the mother deed. It only describes it as measuring East-West 23 yards and North-South 173 Yards. When the first purchase was made by Kullappa on 22-5-1951, the extent of land was described as 0.22 guntas and for the first time the survey number has been mentioned as 201/2 with certain specified boundaries. When the land changed several hands upon purchase by Chinnappa and Yellappa vide Ex. P. 21 dated 15-5-1957 the measurement/extent of the land was shown as 0.34 guntas and survey number has been mentioned as 201/2 with certain specified boundary. When the vendors of the plaintiff Channayya alias Arasappa purchased the property under Ex. P. 22 vide sale deed dated 12-5-1958, the extent of land was mentioned as 0.34 guntas in Survey No. 201/2. The present plaintiff-N. Sidda Reddy claims to have purchased the land under Ex. P. 1-sale deed on 22-11-1965 wherein it has been described as Sy. No. 201/2. But, in the plaint schedule the property in question has been described as under:

(2.) It is therefore clear that there is variance in the extent of land for which the suit is filed seeking declaration and injunction and the extent of the property, the plaintiff claims to have purchased vide sale deed-Ex. P. 1. Even the extent of the land mentioned in the title deeds of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff is also not in conformity with the description or the measurement given in the plaint. It is in this background, both the Courts below have found that there was no acceptable explanation forthcoming from the plaintiff as to how the measurement of the land was described as 01 acre 08 guntas which was different from the original description mentioned in the various earlier sale deeds produced at Exs. P. 1, P. 22, P. 21, P. 20 and P. 19.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found that while in the registered sale deed of the plaintiff vide Ex. P. 1 and that of his vendor/predecessor in title, the survey number of the land has been described as Sy. No. 201/2, in the plaint, the plaintiff has laid his claim in respect of Survey No. 47/1B, although he was tracing his title to the said sale deeds without offering any acceptable explanation for his assertion that the property in question comprised Survey No. 47/1B was indeed carved out of the original Survey No. 201/2.