BASAVANAGOWDA Vs. MRUTHYUNJAYA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court. The plaintiff has sought for the relief of injunction to the extent of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.112 which has been described in the schedule. The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has only produced the document of Ex.P1-Notice issued by the Tahsildar, Shikaripur and no document is produced before the Trial Court to prove that he is in possession of the property. The plaintiff is only relying upon the document of Ex.P1 and even the officials of the Revenue Department have not been examined in order to prove the document of Ex.P1. Apart from that, no document is placed before the Court to prove that he has been in possession of the property, except the document of Ex.P1.

(3.) The Trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, in Para No.18 comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the possession, the plaintiff has not produced any document and only relied upon the document of Ex.P5 which is the decision of the Grama Sabha and the same goes to show that the plaintiff is cultivating in the suit survey to the extent of 2 acres which is a forest land and the same is contrary to oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and the claim is only in respect of 20 guntas of land and not in respect of 2 acres as set out in the document of Ex.P5. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not proved his possession to grant the relief.