PAMPANAGOUDA Vs. DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 252/2011 filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein. The said suit is filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction asserting that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas comprised in Sy. No. 122 situated at Sasalmari Village in Sindhanur Taluk of Rachur District. The plaintiff traced his title and possession to the property through her mother one Hampamma. Hampamma, in turn, is said to have got right to the property and possession of the same from her father Ayyanagouda who has given a share to her in the partition that was allegedly effected as prima facie evident from the mutation entry effected vide No. 2111 dated 18.06.1985.

(2.) The Trial Court found that as the mutation entry effected had remained unchallenged, the Court, at the stage of consideration of the prayer for grant of temporary injunction, was required to proceed on the basis of the revenue entries evidenced by the mutation entry. Thus, it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff successfully established that prima facie case was made out regarding the actual possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and also the alleged interference by the defendant. Hence, it granted temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court in M.A. No. 11/2012.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have seriously erred in proceeding on the basis of the mutation entry without there being any material produced to show that there was indeed a partition in the family wherein the other sisters and the defendant herein who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff were given any share. It is his submission that there cannot be a partition only in favour of a present respondent ignoring the other legal heirs.