RAMAKRISHNA GANAPAYYA HEGDE Vs. LAKSHMINARAYANA TIMMAYYA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1982 passed by the Civil Judge Sirsi, in Regular Appeal No. 22 of 1982, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1982 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Sirsi, in Original Suit No. 58 of 1978, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit against defendant for a declaration that the documents d4ted 20-3-1978 got prepared by the defendant through the Revenue Authorities are illegal and void and, as such, they are not binding on him, with consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession over the suit property. According to plaintiff, he was granted 1 acre and 20 guntas of land on 14-8-1968by the Tahsildar of Sirsi and he was in possession of the same ever since that date. Defendant had also prayed for the grant of that land. Defendant, being aggrieved by the said grant of land in favour of plaintiff, went up in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi, and the Assistant Commissioner, by his order dated 31-12-1968, set aside the grant in favour of the plaintiff. He granted the land in favour of defendant. Plaintiff went up in appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, on 29-7-1970. Second appeal by the present plaintiff to the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed on 29-2-1972. There after, the Tahsildar issued notice to the present plaintiff to hand over possession of the land sanctioned to the successful grantee, viz., the defendant on 2-8-1977, giving him seven days time to hand over possession. That notice issued to the present plaintiff was challenged by him before this Court in writ petition No. 6835 of 1977, contending that the notice was not in accordance with law and the same should be quashed. This Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on 24-1-1978. Again, the Tahsildar issued a fresh notice dated 8-3-1978 to the plaintiff. It was served on him on 10-3-1978. He, however, gave an application for extending time and granting stay on 17-3-1978 to the Tahsildar, which came to be rejected on 20-3-1978. There upon, the Tahsildar, according to him, went to the spot, took delivery of possession of the suit land from plaintiff and handed over possession to defendant who ha succeeded in the appeal in the land-grant case, as per Exhibit P-1 and the 'Kabja' receipt which is dated 20-3-1978. It is this proceeding conducted by the Tahsildar which is challenged by the plaintiff in the suit as illegal and void and he has prayed in the suit that the Court should declare all the proceedings in respect of delivery of actual possession of the suit land to the defendant as illegal and void and he has further prayed that permanent injunction be issued against defendant restraining him from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit land.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing his written statement. He asserted that the Tahsildar delivered possession of the suit property in his f our legally and validly as per 'Kabja' receipt (Exhibit P-1) on 20-3-1978. There was nothing t or vitiating about it. He further contended that possession was handed over to him after recovering the cultivating charges of Rs. 122/- in cash. He denied that plaintiff continued to be in possession that plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit land. He denied that he acted in collusion with the Tahsildar. Plaintiff had instituted original suit No. 33 of in favour of the plaintiff. He granted the 1973 on the suit land in favour of defendant was illegal. That suit was decided against him. The present suit was another attempt to put spokes, in the path of defendant from enjoying the suit land which he got under legal and valid grant. For these reasons, he urged that the suit be dismissed with costs.