R ANJENI Vs. SHEELA JAGADISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil ands Sessions Judge Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S.No.26379/2011 dtd. 1/8/2017 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was defendant before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, alleging that the plaintiff was the owner of the Site No.63, Khatha No.24 at Basavanapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring 30 x 40 feet (herein after referred as the "suit schedule property") was purchased from previous vendor Sri.D.Nataraj s/o Sri.Doreswamy dtd. 9/4/2010. He was put in possession and paid taxes to BBMP. This property has been formed from Sy.No.24(P) of Basavanapura Village, which was darkhast land. Originally the land was granted to one Sri.Doreswamy, the father of the vendor of the plaintiff on 12/3/1979 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. The said darkhast land belongs to Scheduled Caste. On 1/9/1977 a certificate was granted under the Regularization of Unauthorized Occupancy scheme and a Saguvali chit was issued by tahzildar on 19/4/1979. Later, after death of the original grantee, the vendor of the plaintiff Sri.D.Nataraj, under a Released Deed dtd. 25/4/2006 was executed by the wife of the Sri.Doreswamy and other children. Accordingly, sites were formed by Sri.D.Nataraj and was sold to the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The defendant, when came near the property on 25/7/2011 and was trying to encroach the property, hence the suits came to be filed.