BASHU SAB Vs. HUSSAIN SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is by the plaintiff (now represented through his LRs.), being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 26/9/2008 passed in R.A.No.32/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Koppal (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), in and by which, the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 19/11/2007 passed in O.S.No.80/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Koppal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court).

(2.) The above suit is filed by the plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction against the defendant on the premise that suit property being vacant piece of land measuring 30'x27' was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1973-74 by the Tahasildar, Koppal. That ever since the date of allotment, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That the defendant without having any right, title or interest over the suit property was unnecessarily interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement specifically denied the case of the plaintiff. It is contended by the defendant that he is the owner in possession of ancestral house measuring 55'x31.5' situated on the northern side of the open space being claimed in the suit by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff in collusion with the Revenue Authorities, had fabricated and created documents. He had not created any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. It is further contended by the defendant that he has put up foundation on the suit property and has also constructed a bathroom, which is used by the defendant. The defendant has also disputed the description of the property and also the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted by the Panchayat is also denied on the premise that Panchayat having no right or authority to allot the suit property to the plaintiff. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show his possession over the suit property.