SHASHIKIRAN Vs. TAHSILDAR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that his father, E.V. Shanthakumar was granted 10 guntas of Government land out of 6.17 acres of land in survey No. 278 of Nagamangala Town, for non -agricultural purpose by the Government vide its order dated 16.03.1960. The upset price was credited to the Tahsildhar's account, who later on, issued a Saguvali Chit on 13.03.1960. The plaintiff has been put in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying assessment to the Government. He was granted license by the Town Municipal Council, Nagamangala for construction of the building. However for want of funds, he could not do so. The Assistant Education Officer, Nagamangala was given possession of the land measuring 17 x 50 feet out of the granted land in terms of the compromise entered into in O.S. No. 73/1992 on the file of then Munsiff, Nagamangala by receipt of Rs. 20,000/ -. The father of the plaintiff has gifted the suit schedule property i.e., grant land excluding the land given to the Assistant Education Officer in favour of the plaintiff through a registered gift deed dated 19.10.2000 and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. The katha was changed in the name of the plaintiff and he obtained licence to put up constructions along with the plan and has started construction to an extent of 13.6 feet x 77 feet and he completed the foundation.

(2.) AT that juncture, the Tahsildhar, Nagamangala and Revenue Inspector, namely, the first and second defendants issued noticed on 11.01.2001 to the plaintiff and on 20.01.2001 to the father of the plaintiff, to cause production of necessary documents to substantiate the title and possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his father replied to the same. Inspite of that, the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession by the plaintiff. Hence, the instant suit was filed seeking for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and consequently a decree for permanent injunction.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: