ESHWARAPPA, Vs. RATHNAMMA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the defendant before the trial Court against the respondent herein, who was the plaintiff before the trial court, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in R.A NO.218/2003 dated 12.9.2006 of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Davanagere, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.64/2002 date 27.10.2003 of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Jagalur.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -respondent before the trial court is that she is the owner in possession of the suit schedule vacant site bearing kaneshumari No.223 and katha No.96 measuring about 40 x 30 ft. situated at Kyasanahalli village in Jagalur Taluk which was allotted by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Jagalur Taluk in favour of the plaintiff on 29.9.1986 and the BDO has issued Hakkupatra in favour of the plaintiff during yearly independence day celebration. From the date of grant, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further alleged that the defendant is the adjacent owner of the plaintiff's site who had no right, interest or title over the suit schedule property and he is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property during the last week of June 2002. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the said suit seeking declaration of title and also for permanent injunction against the defendant.

(3.) THE defendant -appellant herein filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. He further submitted in the written statement that the averments made in the plaint para Nos.3 to 6 are all false. He has further pleaded that he is the owner of the suit schedule property since 35 years having peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The Grama Panchayat of Kyasanahalli granted site to the defendant on 9.1.1998 and the name of the defendant is standing in katha No.183 and house No.223 measuring about 34 x 23 ft. One Nagendrappa tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant and the defendant filed a civil suit against Nagendrppa in O.S No.248/2000 for the relief of permanent injunction and the said suit is posted for judgment. The plaintiff filed the suit making false allegations. The BDO has no power or legal authority for issuing the Hakkupatra and hence, the suit is not maintainable. The hakkupatra is a created document. He also contended that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee is not sufficient. Hence, he sought dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial court famed the following issues: