V. LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. SHARADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents are served and remain unrepresented.

(2.) THE appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court and the suit was one for declaration that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property bearing Survey No. 86/1, measuring 3 guntas of Yelahanka and for injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) BE that as it may, the court below has, while considering the case of the plaintiff, expressed with reference to the several documents produced by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was left with only 2 guntas and not 3 guntas. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the court has arrived at a wrong conclusion with reference to Exhibit P.2, which was a document produced to establish that out of total extent of 1 acre 32 guntas, 39 guntas had been acquired by the National Highways Authority of India and possibly, the remaining 33 guntas was sold to the appellant. This however has been misconstrued and on a wrong calculation, the court has held that the plaintiff could have retained only 2 guntas, when actually it was 3 guntas.