HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Shorapur sitting at Shahapur in R.A.No.17/2010 dtd. 29/1/2011, whereby, the learned Senior Civil Judge had set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.188/2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Shahapur and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for declaration to the effect that she is the owner and possessor of the suit open yard Municipal No.10-17 and consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant or servants or agents claiming on his behalf not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. It is alleged that the suit property is part of Survey Nos.364 and 365 of Halisagar village and the said lands are Pada lands since last 50 years and they are adjoining to the village. It is contended that the father-inlaw of the plaintiff having three plots in the said survey numbers and the same was purchased from the true owner by name Solabanna. It is contended that the father-in-law of the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and there was no Gram Panchayat existing at the time of purchase and hence, his name was not entered and after Gram Panchayat came into existence, the name of the father-in-law of the plaintiff and plaintiff's husband entered in the panchayat register by disclosing the suit property as 10-17. It is asserted that after the death of her father-inlaw, the name of the husband of the plaintiff was mutated to the suit property and he was enjoying and he has obtained permission for constructing a compound wall over the suit property from the Town Planning Authority, Shahapur (for short 'TPA, Shahapur) in the year 2002 and the same was approved. It is alleged that the defendant being a political leader colluded with the Revenue Authorities, without the knowledge and notice to the plaintiff, got mutated Survey Nos.364 and 365 in his name with malafide intention and he had no right, title or interest over the suit property. The defendant has denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and hence, it is alleged that the plaintiff has constrained to file a suit for declaration and injunction.