BASATTAPPA Vs. SUSHILA MALLESHAPPA ANTHRAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful 1st defendant is before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2012 made in RA No. 60/2007 on the file of the District Judge, Fast Track Court -1, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2007, made in O.S. No. 114/2006, on the file of the Civil Jude (Sr. Dn.), Yellapur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and granted perpetual injunction against defendants 1 and 2 permanently from interfering or trespassing into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, who is the plaintiff in the trial court, had filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, (originally in O.S. No. 44/1994, subsequently, on transfer to Yellapur, it was renumbered as OS No. 114/2006), contending that defendant No. 1 is the junior uncle of 2nd defendant and they are residing separately. Defendant No. 3 is residing in the house situated towards south of the suit property. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Laxman Fakirapopa Hulgur of Mundgod on 27.10.1984 through registered sale deed and also the rectification deed dated 13.04.1988 and she is in possession of the suit property. Defendants have no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit property and the plaintiff has constructed a shop building in the suit property, mentioned in the hand -sketch as 'EFGH' measuring 16'.3" x 13'.3". 'ABCD' property mentioned in the sketch is the suit property measuring 50' X 38'. At a distance of 9? towards west from the shop building, the plaintiff has constructed 33' long south -north wall having width of 9" in order to protect the western space. The then Mandal Panchayat of Mundgod have assessed the House Nos. 25 and 27 belonging to the plaintiff situated in the suit property. The then Mandal Panchayat, Mundgod have given licence to the plaintiff to construct building on 14.10.1993. In respect of the said building, plan has been prepared and also approved. The plaintiff has paid house tax to the Municipality on 14.10.1993. The matter stood thus, the defendants claimed that they are also having right in the suit property. They are claiming the space situated towards western side of the protection wall after the space mentioned as 'EFGH' towards south. Claiming the same, defendants, on 20.03.1994 at about 10.00 a.m., came near the suit property and attempted to demolish the protection wall shown in hand -sketch map and also threatened to construct a building in the suit property. Defendants are of peculiar nature persons and it cannot be expected or to say that what are the illegal acts that would be done by the defendants. When the plaintiff questioned about the illegal act of the defendants, they said that they are also having right over the suit property and they asked the plaintiff to approach the Court of law, etc. Therefore, he has filed the suit.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 contested the suit and they filed their written statement. Defendant No. 2 was placed ex parte. On 17.01.2006, the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 entered into comprise and they have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and subsequently, defendant No. 1 also filed objection to the compromise petition. The trial court, after hearing both parties, passed the order dated 24.06.2006. The objections filed by defendant No. 1 was over -ruled and the compromise between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 was allowed on 06.07.2007, etc.