K. NARAYANAPPA Vs. SHAIK ISMAIL SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Appellant instituted O.S. No. 28/1996 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of immovable property being agricultural lands measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 273; 2 acres and 1 acre 20 guntas (two portions) in Sy. No. 6, totaling to 5 acres 20 guntas, Hindiganala village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, arraigning the respondent as defendant. The suit was opposed by filing written statement of the defendant, inter -alia not disputing the grant dated 28.08.1972 of 2 acres in Sy. No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff, while disputing the factum of grant dated 29.03.1971 over 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 6 and investing title in himself in the said property and as regards the grant certificate dated 29.12.1967 in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 6 in favour of Gururajachar who inturn conveyed the said property by sale deed dated 31.01.1975 in favour of plaintiff, was not within the knowledge of the defendant. According to the defendant, land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 6 granted to him under the land grant rules is bounded on the East by Honekal Bachanna's land, West by Ittasandra Gomal, North by plaintiffs land and South by Ittasandra village road.

(2.) IN the trial, the plaintiff introduced as many as 30 documents marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 30 out of which, Exs. P. 1 and 2 relate to the grant certificates issued by the authorities in favour of the plaintiff and Ex. P. 3 -grant certificate in favour of Gururajachar, the vendor of the property conveyed under the sale deed dated 31.01.1975, Ex. P. 4 in favour of the plaintiff, and the remaining being other revenue records such as RTC, pahani, and mutation extracts. Plaintiff examined one Byrappa as P.W. 2. Defendant was examined as D.W. 1, and two witnesses, Basappa as D.W. 2 and Venkatesha as D.W. 3 and marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 8. The trial court by judgment and decree impugned, concluded that in the absence of the sketch, appended to the grant certificates, Exs. P. 1 to P. 3, the plaint schedule property could not be identified and accordingly dismissed the suit.

(3.) THIS appeal was admitted on 14.12.2009 to consider the following substantial questions of law: