THIBBEGOWDA AND ORS. Vs. NINGANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Akkamma who sold the same to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 15/3/1954 and since then the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owners. The revenue documents are all changed to his name. He has been paying the taxes. That the defendants having no manner of right, title or interest, are making attempts to trespass on the suit land and attempting to interfere over the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment over the same. Hence the instant suit was filed seeking for a decree of declaration of plaintiffs title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On service of notices, defendants entered appearance and denied the suit claim. The first defendant disputes the plaintiffs title and possession of the suit property. That there is no proof regarding interference. That the first defendant is the owner in possession of the site measuring 30 x 40 ft. having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 8/7/1985 from one Shanthamma. That the said land originally belonged to one Dasegowda. The same was sold to Sreenivasamurthy and Narayana. Sreenivasamurthy converted his land for non -agricultural purpose and made 30 x 80 ft. site. He has paid the layout charges and conversion charges and the same is assessed to municipal tax. He sold the site in favour of Yashodamma and Shanthamma by bifurcating it into two sites by registered sale deed dated 4/2/1980. The 1st defendant has purchased the site from Shanthamma under a registered sale deed dated 8/7/1985 and since then she is in possession and enjoyment over the said property. That she has obtained valid licence from the Municipality and has started construction work. The plaintiff, by making a bogus claim, is attempting to encroach the defendant's property. Hence it is pleaded that the suit be dismissed.

(2.) BASED on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the impugned order of the appellate court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court that in the absence of any pleading regarding encroachment and possession, the same could not be granted, is erroneous. When the plaint is subsequently amended to include the prayer of encroachment and also seeking for possession, the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding with regard to encroachment and possession.