YELLAPPA Vs. HUSSAINSAB FAKRUSAB ANGADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the defendants of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 123 of 1998, which was pending on the file of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubli. Respondent herein was the plaintiff in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the Trial Court. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff in respect of property bearing VPC No. 21 in Ward No. 1 of Mantur Village of Hubli Taluk measuring 13 feet East-West and 78 feet North-South, bounded by East property purchased by plaintiff and backyard, West property of Yallappa, Hanamappa Doddamani and Yallappa Ningappa Doddamani and Kanakappa Ningappa Doddamani of Backyard and house property, North-Government Road and South property of defendants 1 and 2 and Yallappa Hanamappa Doddamani and house property. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner in possession of property bearing VPC No. 21 as described in the schedule appended to the plaint and that the defendants are adjoining, owners, on the southern side. Since they started interfering with his possession, he had to file a suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) Defendants-appeared before the Trial Court and filed detailed written statement They have specifically denied all the material averments found in the plaint. According to them, property bearing VPC Nos. 134 and 135 of Mantur Village absolutely belongs to them and it measures East-West 63 feet and North-South 85 feet, backyard and house property measuring 22 feet East-West and 47 feet North-South, bounded by; East-House and open space of plaintiff, West property of Laxamappa, Ramachandrappa and Mahadevappa, North-Government Road, and South.-House property, of defendants and the property of Yellappa Talawar. The said schedule, according to the defendants, is the counter-claim schedule and they have also produced a sketch to that effect. Defendants are stated to be the absolute owners of the counter-claim property and they are in actual possession of the same since several years without any obstruction'. According to them, plaintiff is no way connected with the counter-claim property and the plaintiff has purposefully shown VPC No. 21 as suit property, but in fact the property shown by the plaintiff is a part and parcel of property bearing VPC Nos. 134 and 135. With these pleadings he had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction by way of counter-claim.

(3.) According to the defendants, plaintiff has suppressed the material facts before the Court and had obtained temporary injunction, and on the basis of the same, plaintiff is stated to have encroached and area measuring 9 feet x 30 feet towards East and adjoining to this 12 feet x 78 inches (VPC Nos. 134 and 135) and has forcibly put up a fence and put up some illegal construction. The plaintiff is stated to have encroached the counter-claim property to an extent of 9 feet x 30 feet shown by letters 'GHIJ' as indicated in the hand sketch submitted by him. Defendants have also prayed for consequential relief of mandatory injunction to remove the illegal construction. A Commissioner had also been appointed by the Court to visit and submit a report.