C.E. KUBERAIAH Vs. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2011 passed in R.A. No. 490/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgud, wherein the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2008 passed in O.S. No. 107/2006 by the Civil Court (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Arkalgud, has been confirmed. Appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court and respondent was the defendant. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court are that, originally, the suit schedule property was a Government land and earlier, he was cultivating the suit schedule property unauthorizedly for more than 23 years and thereafter, the Government on 5.10.2002 granted the suit schedule property in his name. Thereafter, he became absolute owner of the suit schedule property and was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant though has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, interfered with possession of the plaintiff and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 257/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) And JMFC, Arkalgud, against the defendant seeking permanent injunction. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement stating that the land measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy. No. 62/1 and 0.20 guntas in Sy. No. 62/2 has been granted in his favour. It is contended that since the date of grant, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. He has further contended that the suit is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed. After considering the merits of the case, ultimately, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The suit of the appellant -plaintiff is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 490/2008.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) CONTRARY to this, learned Counsel for the respondent -defendant, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the plaintiff earlier also filed a suit in O.S. No. 257/2003 in respect of the very property seeking injunction against the respondent -defendant and subsequently, the appellant -plaintiff entered into compromise in the said suit admitting that the suit property belongs to the defendant and the respondent -defendant is in possession and enjoinment of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the said compromise, the suit filed subsequently for a declaration and injunction is not at all maintainable and that, both the Courts below on properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record have rightly dismissed the suit. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and there are concurrent findings of both the Courts with regard to possession and enjoyment as well as title to property in favour of the respondent -defendant. The learned Counsel submitted that the appeal is liable to the dismissed.