MARUTHI AMBANNA NAGANKERI Vs. MANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments by both the Courts below in O.S. No.115/2000 dtd. 16/9/2008 passed by the Add. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Bidar and in R.A. No.22/2010 dtd. 22/1/2011 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bidar, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed in part and rejected the claim for declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property.

(2.) Parties would be referred to as per their status before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The brief facts are as below: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the title over the suit schedule property and to restrain the defendants from obstructing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaint described the suit schedule property a room and a shop measuring East-West 18' and North-South 66' situated at Sirsi(A) Village and the plaint was accompanied by a hand sketch of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property, which he got as part of his share in the family partition between himself and his brother Jatteppa. He contended that he is in the capacity as exclusive owner and in possession along with his family members. It was stated in the plaint that even prior to the partition, the suit property was standing jointly in the names of the plaintiff and his brother Jatteppa and since from the date of partition the name of the plaintiff is appearing in all the records of the Gram Panchayat. He contended that the defendants are in no way concerned either to the plaintiff or to the property of the plaintiff, nor the defendants are the neighbours of the plaintiff. It was contended that defendants simply started to harass the plaintiff by creating unnecessary quarrels, nuisance and disputed the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. Defendant No.1 also started squatting in the shop portion along with his son and other antisocial elements with the help of political leaders of the village. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to squat over the suit property and create any nuisance, but such requests failed on the deaf ears of the defendants and he flatly denied the title of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff was constrained to gather a panchayat and requested the defendants not to create any obstructions, but they refused to heed to the request of the villagers and as such plaintiff constrained to file a suit seeking declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property measuring 18' East-West and 66' North-South, bearing Gram Panchayat No.58/40-2 and to issue perpetual injunction against the defendants.