KAUSAR PARVEEN Vs. CITY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal, calling in question the Judgment and Decree dated 12.3.2004 in OS No. 377/2002, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,], Davanagere and the Judgment and Decree dated 26.3.2008 in RA No. 118/2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions. Judge, FTC -II, Davanagere, dismissing the appeal and confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellant instituted OS No. 377/2002 for declaration and injunction in respect of the immovable property bearing CTS No. 168 measuring 48 ft x 24 ft, situated in Shabanur Village, Davanagere Taluk, on the premise that Shabanur Mandal Panchayat in its resolution dated 26.7.1978, allotted the site in question in her favour, following which, she made a deposit of Rs. 748.80/ - being its value resulting in execution of the sale certificate No. 5/1978 -79 dated 14.8.1978 and delivery of possession. On the allegation that defendants 2 to 4 denied title of the plaintiff and interfered with her possession of that property on 11.3.2002, the suit was instituted.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 though served with court notice, remained absent and were unrepresented, hence were placed ex parte. Defendants 1 and 4 filed separate written statements, whence Defendant No. 1 denied the case of the plaintiff while admitting the fact that the schedule property fell within the jurisdiction of Shabanur Mandal Panchayat, and later within the territorial jurisdiction of Davanagere City Municipal Corporation. According to 1st defendant, sites were formed and allotments made to needy persons and that the suit schedule property was allotted to the 2nd defendant by the Mandal Panchayat, in its resolution passed in the meeting held on 26.7.1978, fixing an upset price of Rs. 748.80/ - and on deposit issued a sale certificate on 8.6.1981 and delivered possession. It was asserted that since the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property, has no right, title or interest over the same and further that there was neither a resolution nor execution of a sale certificate in favour of the plaintiff. The Defendant No. 4 in his written statement asserted that Defendants 2 and 3 have no subsisting right, title or interest, since after the suit schedule property was allotted on 8.6.1981 to H. Virupakshappa the 2nd defendant, conveyed the same in favour of the 3rd defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,000/ - under a conveyance deed dated 30.9.1982 where afterwards, the 3rd defendant sold said site in favour of the 4th defendant, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 20,000/ - under a registered sale deed executed on 30.11.1989 following which the 4th respondent's name was entered in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property.

(3.) THE trial court, having regard to the material on record, evidence both oral and documentary, recorded findings in the negative over issues 1 to 3 and 6 and in the affirmative over issues 4 and 5 and accordingly dismissed the suit.