PUTTAMMA Vs. BASAVAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the dismissal of original suit bearing O.S. No. 744/1992 which was pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC (Jr. Dn.), Mandya and confirmed by the Court of the District Judge, Mandya in R.A.299/2004 (old No. 38/2000). Respondents are the defendants and appellant herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. Concurrent findings of the Courts below are called in question in this appeal.

(2.) PARTIES will be referred to plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking in the Trial Court. Facts leading to filing of the suit by plaintiff K. Lingaiah are as follows:

(3.) DEFENDANTS chose to file a detailed written statement denying all the material averments in regard to grant made by the Tahsildar Mandya in favour of deceased plaintiff and issuing saguvali chit. Plaintiff had been called upon to strictly prove the contents of the plaint. According to the defendants, plaintiff -Lingaiah had never been in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. It is further averred that even if the plaintiff were to prove that portion of land in Sy. No. 181 belonged to him, it could be Sy. No. 181/B or Sy. No. 181/1B measuring 0.81 ares and not 1 hectare 64 ares. It is further averred that the said 81 ares of land has been settled in favour of Honnappa and Indramma through a registered settlement deed and therefore plaintiff is not in possession of the same. According to the defendants, boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are incorrect and false. According to them, documents relied upon by them is fabricated and concocted with the help of the revenue officials.