(1.) CONCURRENT findings are called in question before this Court by the plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 257/2002. Suit filed by the plaintiff against the respondent before the trial Court in O.S. No. 257/2002 i.e. the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Raibag for the relief of declaration of mandatory injunction has been allowed in part granting the relief of mandatory declaration, only relief of mandatory injunction has been negatived by the trial Court.
(2.) PLAINTIFF by filing an appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. challenged the said judgment and decree in R.A. No. 258/2008 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag. The said appeal has also been dismissed after contest. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per the ranking given in the trial Court.
(3.) CASE of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 15C/4 of Raibag town in the vicinity of Railway station and that the defendant has encroached an area of 4 guntas of land in this Survey number. According to him, the encroachment is forthcoming from the P.T. sheet prepared by the competent surveyor. He has relied upon Ex. P3 the original sale deed in regard to the acquisition of title of the suit property. According to the plaintiff he has purchased the suit property from the original owner Mulla family on 27.04.1992 through a registered sale deed by paying a consideration of Rs. 6,000/ -. The property was vacant and in abutting, the railway station at Raibag. The defendant's land in R.S. No. 15C/4 measuring 6 guntas on the western side by suit schedule property and defendant is said to have illegally encroached the land of 4 guntas in the year 2002 in during the month of January 2002. Defendant is said to have put up construction by encroaching his land and plaintiff raised objections at that time and even called upon the defendant to get his property measured and then only to put up construction. On 17.05.2002, an application was filed before the Survey Authorities for measuring his land and ultimately, it was noticed encroachment had been made by the defendant.