P T PREM KUMAR Vs. N MUNIKRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing Janjer No.14, Site No.14 situated at Sattarsab Dinne of Bukkasagara Dhakle of Anekal Taluk as described in the schedule. It is contended that, earlier said property was belonging to one Muniraju and the plaintiff had purchased the same under registered sale deed dtd. 15/9/2004 from Muniraju and all the records are standing in his name and the defendant, without any right is interfering with possession of the suit schedule property.

(3.) In pursuance of the suit summons, the Trial Court issued summons to the defendant and the defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments of the plant and however, contended that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of Sy.No.164/3, which was purchased by him through a registered sale deed dtd. 22/3/1996 in the name of M/s. United Investments. The defendant is one of the partner to the said investment and the said land is a converted land for non-agricultural purpose and the plaintiff has manipulated the documents and not having any right.