DODDAMARIGOWDA AND ORS Vs. BYREGOWDA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these second appeals arise out of the suit in O.S.No.730/1985. The second appeal in R.S.A.No.156/2011 is by defendant No.1 and the connected second appeal in R.S.A.No.342/2011 is by the L.R. of the plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property namely, site bearing No.11(C-11) (measuring 50ft. x 60 ft.) allotted in favour of the original plaintiff by the Mysore City Corporation. The trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule site and restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit site. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 carried the matter to the Lower Appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court, on a reappreciation of the evidence on record, modified the judgment of the trial Court by setting aside the declaratory relief granted to the plaintiff and by affirming the judgment insofar as it related to grant of permanent injunction.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the two appeals and perused the judgments of the two Courts below.

(3.) The allotment of the suit schedule site to the plaintiff is evidenced by Exs.P3 and P4. The learned Counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that in view of the decree obtained by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.471/1980 which is marked in evidence as Ex.D5, both the Courts below had erred in granting injunction as according to him, the said decree related to the very plaint schedule site. This contention is rightly rejected by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that in the previous proceeding in CRP Nos.2585 & 2569/1999 before this Court, the learned Senior Counsel who represented the petitioner therein (who is defendant No.1 in the present suit i.e. O.S.No.730/1985) had made the following submission: