IRAGOUDA JINAGOUDA PATIL Vs. DILIP NEMAGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal filed under Sec. 100 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi in R.A.No.22/199 dtd. 17/6/2006 whereby the learned District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chikodi in O.S.No.110/1996 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by granting reliefs as prayed for by the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants in respect of suit property, which is a Gavathana plot No.1 of Mangur village, measuring 45 x 15 ft shown by letters 'AEFD' in the hand sketch for the relief of permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, the entire property was initially measuring 45 ft east-west and 45 ft north- south and for the family necessity, the grandfather of the plaintiff has alienated a portion of the suit property to one Bharma Appa Biraj under a registered sale deed dtd. 18/3/1932 measuring 45 x 30 ft and the grandfather of the plaintiff continued to be in possession to the extent of 45 x 15 ft, which is the suit schedule property. It is contended that after his death, the father of the plaintiff has inherited the suit property and after his death, the plaintiff and his brother are enjoying the suit property and they have succeeded to the same. It is also alleged that their names are mutated to the suit property and the purchaser is in possession of the remaining portion of property measuring 45 x 30 ft and the plaintiff is using the suit property for tethering cattle and keeping fodder and for other activities. It is asserted that the defendants without having right, title or interest are interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property by attempting to put up temporary shed over the same and their property is bearing VPC No.116, which is no way concerned to the suit property. Hence, the suit.