MARUTHI Vs. ABDULSALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is by the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 12/10/2012 passed in O.S.No.688/1998, on the file of the IV Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), and in by which, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which was confirmed by the judgment and order dtd. 26/2/2014 passed in R.A.No.162/2012 on the file of the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that; the plaintiffs filed a suit originally for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any type of construction of building in the suit property and also from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, which was subsequently amended and converted into a suit for relief of possession and mandatory injunction, contending inter alia that the father of the plaintiffs namely Dhaklu Shinde had purchased suit property being a vacant non-agricultural plot bearing CTS No.10969/A/1A/1A measuring 2 guntas forming part of the property bearing R.S.No.1366/1/1A situated within the limits of Belgaum from its previous owner Gangubai Kakatkar in terms of deed of sale dtd. 15/10/1962. That upon the demise of the father of the plaintiffs, their names were entered in the revenue records on 5/8/1988 vide M.E.No.1723. The suit property was declared to be fragmented land and later the plaintiffs applied and obtained change of usage of land into non-agricultural land in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum dtd. 21/6/1994.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father earlier had filed a suit in O.S.No.671/1994 against one Wamanrao H Jadhav and his brother Ananth Jadhav for relief of permanent injunction, which was decreed and an appeal filed against said judgment and decree was also dismissed, confirming the decree passed in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. That on 19/10/1998 defendants allegedly entered into the suit property with building materials with an intention to putting up construction. Efforts of the plaintiffs to prevent the defendants did not yield any result. As the defendants claimed right over the property on the basis of certain bogus documents, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.