L DAKSHINAMURTHY Vs. K S REVANASIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's second appeal against divergent findings. The Trial Court decreed the suit for injunction, while the Lower Appellate Court, reversed the findings and dismissed the suit.

(2.) APPELLANT instituted OS No.33/2004 for permanent injunction restraining the respondent arraigned as defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the following two items of suit schedule properties,

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff was that one Subbanna and his wife Channamma from out of the wedlock begot five sons, namely, Siddappa, Siddalingappa, Channappa, Siddananjappa and Lingappa out of whom the first three were asserted to have died issueless, while plaintiff is the 3rd son of Lingappa and defendant the first grandson of Siddananjappa. Plaintiff alleged that on the death of the Propositus Subbanna, Siddappa the eldest son was the Manager of the joint Hindu Undivided Family. That Siddappa, his brothers Siddalingappa and Channappa are said to have died prior to 1946, whence, in that year, it is asserted there was an oral partition between Siddananjappa and Lingappa, where under the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Lingappa. In addition, it was asserted that in the year 1966, there was a partition between the children of Lingappa, including the plaintiff who was a minor, whence properties that fell to Lingappa, except the suit schedule properties, were subject matter of partition. The reason for excluding the suit schedule properties, according to the plaintiff is that one of the properties was proposed for acquisition by the State, while the other was to be sold in private and consideration thereof to be put to use for repayment of debts incurred by the family. In addition, the plaintiff stated that 6 guntas of land in Sy. No.46/3, i.e., suit item No.2 when acquired by the State, compensation was made over to the plaintiff. It was further asserted that although Siddappa, the Manager of the joint family died prior to the year 1946, nevertheless, properties stood in the name of Siddappa in the revenue records even as of the year 1980 -81. On the death of the plaintiff's father, it was asserted that he secured an order of the Tahsildar, Srirangapatna Taluk in MR.9/1983 -84 whence mutation entry was made in the revenue reocrds incorporating the name of the plaintiff as khatedar of the suit lands, which order when called in question by the defendant in RRT.12/1982 -83, the Tahsildar set aside MR.9/1983 -84 and directed parties to civil court, and the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, was dismissed, confirming the order, resulting in restoration of the name of Siddappa, son of Subbanna Manager of the Joint Family in the revenue records. It was alleged that the defendant had no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties nor was his father K. Siddappa, S/o. Siddalingappa in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant's interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff, it was asserted, was cause of action for the suit.