N. KRISHNAYYA NAVADA Vs. NITILAKSHA SADSHIVA TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 27/7/2017, passed in R.A.No.15/2012, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K. reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 5/3/2012 passed in O.S.No.65/1999 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of this Court.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.65/1999 is that 'A' schedule properties were the chalageni leasehold properties of the father of the plaintiff under defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff had executed chalageni chit in favour of defendant No.1. After the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the father of the plaintiff filed declaration before the Land Tribunal, Bantwal in TNC No.9504/74-75 and the Land Tribunal, as per its order dtd. 18/4/1979 conferred occupancy right in favour of his father in respect of schedule properties. Ever since then, his father was in actual possession and enjoyment of the same by effecting vast improvement till his death. The documents were also transferred in favour of the father of the plaintiff and he was paying the tax and enjoying the same as absolute owner. Formerly item No.1 of the schedule property was bailu field and major portion of bailu field were capable of growing two paddy crops. The father of the plaintiff was raising two crops in the said paddy field. Item No.1 of schedule property is situated towards north of Sy.No.117/4, wherein defendant No.1 temple is situated. The land in Sy.No.117/2A is higher in level by about 4- 5 feet from the land situated in Sy.No.117/4. There is a kattahuni in Sy.No.117/2A in its southern side and in Sy.No.117/2A. The width of the same is about 10-12 feet. Towards south of the said kattahuni, the land in Sy.No.117/4 is situated which is about 4-5 feet lower in level wherein defendant No.1 temple is situated. The said kattahuni which is situated in Sy.No.117/2A there are 5 yielding coconut trees, 2 coconut plants, one tamarind tree, one mango tree, one jack fruit tree and one teakwood tree which has been maintained and reared by his father till his death and after his death, the plaintiff was utilizing the usufructs of the said trees for himself.