G M NAGESHA GOWDA Vs. ANNAPOORNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in O.S. No.257/1992, re-numbered as O.S. No.81/1995 and yet again, as O.S. No.26/2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,), N.R. Pura, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.6.2007 in R.A. No.90/2004 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chikmagalur allowing the appeal to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, have presented this second appeal.

(2.) Respondent, since deceased, represented by legal heirs, instituted O.S. No.257/1992 on 21.11.1992 before the Munsiff at Koppa for the reliefs of (i) vacant possession and (ii) a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the immovable property being a building site measuring 20 guntas comprised in Sy. No.119 of Addagadde Village of Sringeri Taluk, together with a thatched hut measuring 10 x 8 feet, bounded on the East by Sy. No.290 building site and Sy. No.119 part of Government land, West by Sy. No.289 building site belonging to the plaintiff wherein he has constructed a building and a thrashing yard and Sy. No.119 of Government land, South by Sy. No.119 part of Government land, and North by Koppa-Sringeri Road. That suit when transferred was numbered as O.S. No.81/1995 and thereafter, when transferred to N.R. Pura Court, was numbered as O.S. No.26/2000. The 1st appellant arraigned as the 1st defendant filed written statement dated 10.6.1993, while defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the said written statement. According to the 1st defendant, the grant certificate asserted by the plaintiff was a forged document since the description of the boundaries of the land granted have been written in a different ink. In other words, interpolated before filing the suit. According to the 1st defendant, when similar such grant certificates were issued, the Revenue Department, against the column showing the boundaries of the land granted, mentioned "as per the sketch". Therefore, it was contended that the grant certificate mentioning the boundaries of the property was fabricated. In addition, it was contended that before issuing a grant certificate, the surveyor of the Revenue Department has to conduct a survey to identify the extent of land in possession of the grantee, fix the boundaries, draw a survey sketch to be notified by the ADLR, which, together, would form a basis for the Tahsildar to grant land under the Land Grant Rules. The 1st defendant asserted that in the absence of the aforesaid records, the plaintiff, having fabricated the grant certificate, was not entitled to the relief of possession. Lastly, it was contended that the defendants are in possession of the hut constructed 10 years ago and in respect of which taxes are paid to Mandal Panchayath, while the licence to put up construction issued by the Mandal Panchayat in favour of the plaintiff was stayed by an order of Mandal Pachayat on the premise that there was no material to establish the exact location of the said site. The 1st defendant asserted that the plaintiff was not in possession of the schedule hut, while it was the defendant, who has been in possession of the said hut and therefore, the question of encroachment did not arise.

(3.) In the terms of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed three issues which were re-casted, whence, six issues were framed. Parties entered trial, when one R. Krishna Murthy the 2nd plaintiff was examined as P.W.l and documents Exs.P.1 to P.29 marked, while for the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and documents Exs.D.1 to 4 marked.