K.L. ANANDA RAO Vs. H.P. SHARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant -plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2003 in O.S. No. 34/1998 passed by the II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Mysore and the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2006 passed in R.A. No. 254/2003 by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Mysore.

(2.) THE appellant herein filed the aforesaid suit before the trial Court seeking relief of declaration that he has perfected his title to the plaint schedule property as an absolute owner by establishing long usage and possession and by adverse possession and also for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, servants or any person claiming under the defendant not to interfere in the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever.

(3.) THE defendant appeared in the said suit and filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. It is contended that since the earlier suit filed by Govinda Rao against the plaintiff herein and his father in O.S. No. 225/1986 has been decreed and the appeal preferred in R.A. No. 22/1993 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Mysore came to be withdrawn by filing a memo stating that the appeal has become infructuous, the present suit filed is not maintainable. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property from his original owner Govinda Rao and he has perfected his right, title and interest over the same. Katha has been transferred in her name and hence, she is the absolute owner of the said property. It is further stated in the written statement that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit is barred by time. The plaintiff has not valued the suit schedule property properly. The relief claimed cannot be granted as the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property and hence, sought to dismiss the suit.