ANTHURIAH Vs. REVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendants under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.), Tumkur in O.S.No.781/1993 and confirmed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Tumkur in R.A.No.7/2007.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and FOR permanent injunction against defendants. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property is 1 acre 3 guntas out of 3 acres 6 guntas situated in Sy.No.5/1A in Kesaramadu Village with specific boundaries referred in the schedule. That the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it is the property of his family. That suit property was originally in possession of the family of the plaintiff and after the death of his father, he is in possession. It is asserted that the suit property was earlier was part of Sy.No.5 and it was totally measuring 4 acres and 7 guntas and on 1/2/1958 Karesiddaiah and Revaiah sons of Ananthuraiah gifted an extent of 2 acres and 3 guntas out of the said land in favour of brother of the father of the plaintiff. It is asserted that since, the date of the gift, father of the plaintiff and his uncle were in possession of the gifted land and they sold 1 acre 3 guntas out of the gifted land in favour of one Jayanarasimhaiah and remaining land in Sy.No.5 was partitioned between Revaiah and Karesiddiah together in respect of 3 acres 6 guntas of land was given new Sy.No.5/1A. It is asserted that the property was partitioned between the father of the plaintiff and his uncle and suit property has fallen to the share of the plaintiffs. He asserts that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. By taking advantage of the fact that the defendants possess some small portion in suit survey number colluding with each other trying to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. The defendants have no right, title or interest to sell the suit schedule property to defendant No.6 and sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff claims that he is compelled to file this suit. Initially, the suit for bare injunction was filed, but subsequently, the plaint was got amended by incorporating the relief of declaration.