GUTTAPPA Vs. SRI THIMMARAYAPPA AND SRI SAMPANGIRAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S. No. 54/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hoskote has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in refusing his claim to suit schedule property and in not believing the possession of suit property with respect to Hakku Pathra issued in his favour vide Ex. P1. On going through judgments of both the Courts below, it is seen that the said Hakku Pathra which is at Ex. P1 is not believed for the reason that it is not issued either by the Tahsildar or any other authority of the Government, but it is said to have been issued by the Pradhana of Grama Panchayat. It is also not established under what authority the said Hakku Pathra is issued by him and the order supporting the same is also not produced.

(2.) THE trial Court has also observed that the plaintiff though contends that he has secured Hakku Pathra in the year 1991, has not secured khata of the said property in his name and the tax paid receipts which are produced by him are the one which are for the years 1991 -92 and 2002 -03 which are marked as Exs. P4 to P6 and the said documents does not tally with Ex. D1 so far as boundaries and other things mentioned in the demand register and it is also noticed by both the Courts below that plaintiff is not in a position to say exactly what is the extent of land in which the defendants have tried to disturb his possession and in the evidence he has admitted that the defendants have put up a shop in a portion of property for which no relief is sought to re -claim possession.

(3.) WHEN both the Courts below concurrently hold such finding against the plaintiff, this Court is unable to find any valid ground to consider admission of this appeal, since no substantial question of law arise for consideration as against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below on facts, where plaintiff has failed to establish his title and possession to suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, second appeal filed by plaintiff in O.S. 54/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hoskote, is hereby dismissed. Consequently, concurrent findings of both the Courts below is hereby confirmed.