NARASIMHAIAH Vs. B. N. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is posted for admission. Heard the appellant's counsel.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.180/2007 is that the land bearing Sy.No.58 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas belong to one Kodigowda. The said land is pada land. The plaintiffs are the owners of the said land and they claimed the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Based on the plaintiffs' application before the Tahasildar and other revenue authorities to restore the pada land, the Deputy Commissioner after enquiring with the Revenue authorities directed the Tahasildar, Gubbi to take the penalty and accept the excess cess as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and restore the same in the name of the plaintiff. As per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiffs have paid the necessary amount for restoration of pada and after restoration the RTC stands in the name of Kodigowda. The plaintiffs are the only owners of the suit schedule properties and Kodigowda had six sons, by name Chikkarangaiah, Narasegowda, Hanumarangaiah, Nalluraiah, Thimmaiah and Rangaiah.

(3.) In the year 1964 itself, Kodigowda divided the properties to his sons and the suit schedule property was managed by Kodigowda himself for his legal necessities. Kodigowda during his life time was under the care and custody of his son Thimmaiah and he was in exclusive possession of the suit property till his death. The said Kodigowda died long back. Subsequent to the death of Kodigowda, his son Thimmaiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thimmaiah died on 14/4/1998 and thereafter plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners. It is also contended that the plaintiffs have preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, seeking direction to Tahasildar to initiate mutation proceedings on the claim of the plaintiffs as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court directed the Tahasildar to consider the objection filed by the plaintiffs and to dispose of the same. The defendants though they have no right over the suit schedule property filed petition before the Tahasildar to change khata in the name of defendants. The defendants producing documents which do not pertain to the suit schedule property, got the revenue entries in their names. The Tahasildar without verifying the document has passed order for change of khata in the name of the defendants. He has no right to change khata in the name of the defendants.