KANTHARAJU Vs. BASAVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants to an original suit bearing O.S.No.6/2001 which was pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Srirangapatna are before this Court challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below by filing an appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The first respondent is the sole plaintiff. The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their rankings before the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the suit in O.S.No.6/2001 in respect of 12 guntas of agricultural land in Survey No.181 of Hongahally village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District are as follows: The plaintiff is said to have purchased schedule property measuring 12 guntas of land from the younger brother of the first defendant through a registered sale deed dated 10.3.1993 for valuable consideration. The plaintiff is said to have been put into possession of property by the vendor on the very day of execution of the sale deed and since then the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Since the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, the plaintiff was left with no avenue except to file a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The first defendant has contested the suit and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have not contested the same by filing written statement.

(3.) THE gist of the stand taken by the first defendant is as under: That the schedule property was never handed over to the plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale deed and that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are bogus revenue records which are created in the name of the plaintiff in collusion with revenue authorities; the first defendant is the owner of 10 guntas of land in Survey No.181 of Hongahally Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District; his father had filed suit in respect of said 10 guntas in O.S.No.380/74 against the father of the plaintiff which came to be decreed; the father of defendant No.3 therein filed an appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure in R.A.No.110/1978 against the said decree and the said appeal was also dismissed confirming the decree passed in O.S.No.380/74; in view of the illegal interference, defendant No.1 had filed Execution case in Execution Petition No.108/82; the father of defendant No.1 had filed another suit in O.S.No.530/62 against father and brothers of plaintiff in respect of 10 guntas of land and the same has also been decreed. With these pleadings, he requested the trial Court to dismiss the suit.