G.N. HANUMANTHAIAH Vs. PATEL NARASEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant -plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2006 passed by the Fast Track Court -V at Tumkur in R.A. No. 235/2005, whereby the first appellate court has partly allowed the appeal and modified the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.6.1993 passed in O.S. No. 67/1986 by the learned Principal Judge (Jr. Dn.), Madhugiri.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this case are that appellant -plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit before the trial Court for the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and servants and all others claiming under him from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule land bearing Sy. No. 51/1 as shown in the schedule to the plaint. He inherited the said property through his father, who purchased it from his previous owner by a registered sale deed dated 26.9.1966. The defendant has no right whatsoever and even if he had any right over the suit schedule property, it has been lost. Plaintiff has further pleaded that he has perfected his title to the property after enjoying it for more than 12 years openly and uninterruptedly and hostile to the interest of others. Hence, he has perfected his title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession. It is further pleaded that the defendant is now claiming that he has purchased a portion of the suit survey number marked as ABCD in the rough sketch annexed to the plaint and also attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Even if the defendant had any right over the suit schedule property, he had lost it by allowing the plaintiff to enjoy for more than 12 years. It is further pleaded that when he questioned the illegal act of the defendant, the defendant denied the plaintiff's title to the suit schedule land. Hence, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as ten issues, which are as under: