AMANULLA Vs. NARAYANA BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24/4/2019 passed in R.A.No.21/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that they have filed the suit for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also direct the defendants to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property bearing site No.6, measuring 55 x 40 feet formed in Sy.No.332/A of Urgadur village, Shivamogga taluk. It is contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same was granted by the Block Development Officer, Shivamogga on 17/5/1983. There were certain irregularities in the process of forming the layout, the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga was asked by the Government of Karnataka to screen and scan the alleged irregularities and under the leadership of then Deputy Commissioner, a screening committee was formed and ultimately on 5/4/1988, the Deputy Commissioner regularised the house sites allotted in the name of the beneficiaries including the plaintiff. It is further contended that as per the said order, the plaintiff has paid fees to the Tahasildar amounting to Rs.13,090.00. Thereafter, the katha of the suit schedule property changed in the name of the plaintiff and he was paying taxes regularly to the Gram panchayath. Due to extension of city municipal limit, the Urgadur village has come within the jurisdiction of CMC, Shivamogga and katha was also made by the CMC in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in W.P.No.10732/1998 before this Court and this ct vide order dtd. 28/10/1999 upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner and thereby the grant made to different allottees including the plaintiff reached its finality. The defendants having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, have trespassed into the suit schedule property and put up the sheds therein which is illegal and they have no right to continue in the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, filed the suit.