B.C.KRISHNA Vs. BESAGARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.2.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and injunction is that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since more than 40 years, which was in possession and enjoyment of his grandfather late Channegowda and after his demise, his father C. Channegowda was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Originally it belongs to Besagarahalli Grama Panchayath. By settled possession over a period of 40 years, the plaintiff has perfected his title. Though the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, later on, he restricted the relief to permanent injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons, notice was served on defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was placed exparte and defendant No.2 appeared and filed the written statement denying the contention that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.2 is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which comes within the site measuring 25 yards x 25 yards, which was originally granted to his father during 1963-64. The plaintiff is not having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property.

(3.) The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 10. The defendant No.2 examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 7. The Trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his possession in respect of the suit schedule property and also not established interference by the defendants and answered issue No.3 as barred by doctrine of res-judicata and dismissed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.