(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant -plaintiff being aggrieved of the concurrent judgment and decree dated 5.9.2005 passed in R A No. 189/97 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Kolar confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.9.1997 in OS No. 292/90 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kolar. The Courts below have dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.
(3.) THE defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of 2 acres of land but he is in possession and enjoyment of about 1 acre of land. The suit Sy. No. 77/1 old No. 6 measured totally 6 acres 23 guntas including kharab land of 1 acre 35 guntas. Excluding the kharab, the land in Sy. No. 77/1 was 4 acres 28 guntas. Under a registered sale deed dated 3.4.1944 Puttaiah, father of the defendant and one Samuelaiah purchased 3 acres 21 1/4 guntas of land from Sri Lakshminarayanappa and they were put in possession. On 12.10.1963, the said Samuelaiah executed release deed in favour of Puttaiah and released 1 acre 2 1/4 guntas of land on the western side of property in favour of Puttaiah and Samuelaiah retained 2 acres 19 guntas. Since then Puttaiah was in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre 2 1/4 guntas of land in S. No. 77/1. After his death, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of this land by raising crops. Though there was no land measuring 2 acres in the Survey Number, the plaintiff by concocting and fabricating documents he is falsely claiming property of the defendant. The property of the plaintiff is measuring about 1 acre. The description of the suit schedule property is not correct. The plaintiff has filed the suit only to knock of the property of the defendant. The plaintiffs vendor was never in possession and enjoyment of 2 acres of land. Thus he prays for dismissal of the suit.