FATHIMA BI, Vs. NAJEEBULLA KHAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30.9.2008 passed by the Court of the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S.No.16815/2002. The respondents' suit for ejectment is decreed.

(2.) SMT .Shalini John, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is discrepancy between the schedule to the sale deed at Ex.P1 and the plaint schedule. The property numbers shown in the sale deed at Ex.P1 and the numbers shown in plaint schedule are different. She submits that the respondents are in no position to link the documents at Ex.P2 to Ex.P8 to the property, which they have purchased and to conclusively show that there is re -numbering or re -assigning of the numbers.

(3.) SHE submits that the lease deed at Ex.P7 shows the dimension of the tenanted property as 20 ft. x 40 ft. On the other hand, the plaint schedule shows the dimension of the property on the north to southern side as 33 ft. 9 inches to 35 ft. and east to western side as 38 ft. to 40 ft. If the respondents' case is to be accepted, it means that the appellants have trespassed a portion of the property in excess of 20 x 40 ft. For the recovery of the trespassed property, the respondents have to pay the proper court fee and seek the appropriate relief.