MANCHAMMA Vs. ERAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants -defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2005 passed in R.A. No. 35/2001 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Maddur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 7.9.2004 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Malavalli, in O.S. No. 154/1985.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this case are that, originally, the predecessor of the plaintiffs -respondents, one Girigowda filed a suit against the original three defendants for the relief of declaration that he was the true owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody on their behalf from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff and defendant No. 1 expired and their legal representatives were brought on record. The original plaintiff in the plaint pleaded that he was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the vacant site bearing No. 170 measuring East -West 45 feet and North -South 42 feet situated at Koregala village in Malavalli Taluk as prescribed in schedule to the plaint. The said site was the ancestral property of the original plaintiff. In the family partition between plaintiff and his brothers, it had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that he had been paying tax and the tax paid receipts were produced to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 1 is the father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, whose property is situated on the east of the suit schedule property. The defendants were unnecessarily causing hardship and disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, though they had no right, title or interest over the said property. On 29.7.1985, the defendants, without any regard for law and taking law into their hands, tried to enter upon the suit schedule property. However with the help of neighbours, the original plaintiff resisted such illegal act of the defendants and lodged a complaint before the rural police at Malavalli. It was further pleaded by the original plaintiff that unless the defendants were restrained by an order of permanent injunction, they would not stop the illegal act of interference. With mala fide intention, defendants were denying the title of the plaintiff over suit property. Plaintiff had got valid licence from the village panchayat to put up dwelling house in the suit property.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following four issues: