HONNAIAH Vs. LINGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the defendant in O.S. 101/92 on the file of the Munsiff at Ramanagaram when arraigned as respondent in RA 16/07 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (SrDn), Ramanagaram aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 26.9.2005 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit has presented this second appeal. Respondent since deceased represented by legal representatives instituted O.S. 101/92 to declare him as the owner of the immovable property being 14 guntas of land from out of 3 acres in Sy. No. 107/2 of Doddaganganvadi village, Ramanagaram taluk, Suit schedule 'B' property and to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the said property. In the plaint it was asserted that an extent of three acres of land in Sy. No. 107/2 comprised within the boundaries as set out in the sale deed dt. 25.2.1940 was executed by one Javarayee Gowda and another Muddaiah in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff to the south of the suit land is an extent of 14 guntas in which mango trees are grown and is part of Sy. No. 107/2 which was encroached upon by the plaintiff the cause of action for the suit. Defendant, on notice, entered appearance and opposed the suit by filing statement of objections inter alia contending that the plaintiff obtained a conveyance of 2 acres 36 guntas and not 3 acres while the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the land in which mango trees and allied crops are growing, over which the plaintiff has no right, title and interest. In addition it was contended that defendant has not encroached upon suit schedule 'B' property.

(2.) IN the premise of pleadings of parties the trial court framed the following three issues:

(3.) THAT Judgment and decree when carried in RA 16/02 by the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Ramanagaram, on a reappreciation of the material on record answered the points for determination in the affirmative to reverse the findings of the trial court, to allow the appeal by Judgment and decree dated 26.9.2005 accepting as credible evidence the oral testimony of PW -2 the Surveyor the author of the survey sketch Exs. P5 and the Mahazar Ex. P6, binding upon the parties since the defendant did not question the said survey map in an appropriate legal proceeding and that there was no reason for the plaintiff to have sought for appointment of Court commissioner to measure the suit schedule 'B' property. Although learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ex. P5 survey sketch and Mahazar Ex. P6 are without the knowledge of the defendant -appellant, is the very same submission advanced before the courts below, however, regard being had to the fact that survey and determination of the boundaries of land forming Sy. No. 107/2 by the Survey Officer, if disputed by the defendant, Section 140 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 invests a jurisdiction in the Tahsildar to decide the dispute having regard to the land records, if the parties afford satisfactory evidence of the boundary previously fixed and if not after such enquiry as he considers necessary. In the absence of a challenge to Ex. P5 survey sketch and mahazar Ex. P6 prepared by the survey officer examined as PW -2, in my considered opinion, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court. Since no substantial question of law arises for decision making, appeal is accordingly dismissed.