SRI. NARAYANASWAMY AND SRI. NAGARAJA Vs. SMT. KADIRAMMA, SRI. PATALAPPA DEAD BY LRS (SMT. MUNIYAMMA AND ORS.), SMT. MUTHYALAMMA AND SRI. NARAYANAGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos. 3 and 4 in OS No. 138/1998 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,] & JMFC, Devanahalli, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 26.10.2005 allowing the suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to demolish the portion of the building put up by the defendants on the southern portion of the plaint schedule property, presented RA No. 1/2008 jointly with the other defendants along with an IA to condone the delay of 23 months, in filing the appeal, whence Fast Track Court, Devanahalli, rejected the IA and by Judgment and decree dated 26.8.2010 dismissed the appeal, hence this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by filing written statement of the defendants denying the plaint averments, measurements and the boundaries of the suit schedule property and alleging that the same was with an intention to knock off the suit schedule property. According to the defendants, the suit schedule property was attached to the office of the Totiathalvar, duties of which was performed by the defendants and their elders and even after abolition of the Inam, continued to be in the enjoyment of the defendants. The defendants further asserted that the records in Form Nos. 9 and 10 stood in their name, while the 1st defendant claimed to be the owner in possession of house bearing No. 259 measuring 12 x 23 feet, which was demolished and put up construction with Mangalore tiled roof with the assistance of the Government of Karnataka since the old house was in a dilapidated condition. The 2nd defendant claimed to be owner in possession of Sy. No. 265 measuring 28 x 23 feet with tiled roof and since in a dilapidated condition, was demolished and a new construction put up with the assistance of the Government of Karnataka, though on the existing foundation and in view of the interim order of temporary injunction, fixing of the sheet on the roof was not complete. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the trial court framed the following issues: -

(3.) WHAT order or decree?