BHEEMAJJA Vs. SHAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the divergent judgments passed against the appellant by the First Appellate Court i.e., the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kushtagi. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kushtagi, Koppal District, in O.S.No.95/2002. Respondents herein were the defendants in the said suit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for relief of permanent injunction in respect of plots bearing No.439, 449 and 441 measuring 80 x 100 each only bounded by East, West, North and North Road and South Open place of Math and houses of other defendants. A rough sketch had been appended to the plaint filed in O.S.No.95/2002. The case of the plaintiff as put forth before the trial Court is that he is the absolute owner in possession of these three sites measuring 80 x 100 each as the grant that he has acquired title and possession on the basis of a compromise decree against Devendra Desai and Gram Panchayath, Menedal, but also against the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, Menedal, Tq.Kushtagi in O.S.No.139/1996, which was pending on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Kushtagi. Since some of the purchasers tried to interfere with his possession, he had to file a suit in O.S.No.99/1996 against one Pampanna and others and he has obtained a decree. Since they tried to interfere with his possession, on 15.06.2002, he had to file a suit for the relief of permanent injunction only.

(2.) DEFENDANT Nos.1 and 2 had appeared before the trial Court and defendant No.2 had filed written statement, which came to be adopted by defendant No.1 by filing a memo. Defendant No.2 has specifically denied all the material averments made in the plaint and has called upon the plaintiff to strictly prove the contents of the plaint. According to him, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction and that he is not the owner in possession of these three sites as described in the schedule appended to the plaint and the rough sketch. Defendant No.1 stated to be a dumb person and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have their houses towards southern side of Gram Thana area and that there is a foundation in that area. According to them, foundation is the dividing line between the house of the defendants and Grama Thana area. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be very poor persons and have small Kulume in their house. They are stated to be earning their livelihood from the profession of blacksmithy. He had prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed.