DEVI DEVARAJ Vs. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is preferred by the appellant -defendant against the respondent -plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2007 passed by the Fast Track Court No. II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No. 206/1998 in setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1998 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in O.S. No. 300/1992.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal are that respondent -plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 300/1992 seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant and others from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy. No. 128 situate at Mandur village as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff being a bhovi (scheduled caste) got the schedule property under a grant by the Government as per Government grant No. LND.SR. 1.468/68 -69 at an upset price dated 28.1.1969 by the Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk and he is in possession of the same on the said date. He has paid the kandayam in respect of the said land and since from the date of grant he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The concerned survey authorities have also measured the suit schedule property and a sketch has been prepared in respect of the said property. The said land is marked in green colour in the original sketch. Plaintiff has erected 50 stone pillars on three sides namely, west, north and south of the suit schedule land and recently collected and stocked 30 stones slabs with a view to put up a small shelter. These being the state of affairs, defendant who is running a factory at Hoodi about 12 miles away from the suit land and who has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit land, attempting to disturb plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land recently. Defendant is rich and highly influential person. On 16.4.1992, Tuesday, at about 9.00 a.m. when the plaintiff went to erect the stone slabs in order to put up a shed for the purpose of shelter, defendant came near the suit land with his followers and obstructed the plaintiff from doing so and warned the plaintiff that if he does any work on the suit land he would pull down and break all the slabs. Hence, plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following three issues: