SIDDAIAH AND ORS. Vs. RAMESHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in granting injunction to the plaintiff while restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by way of permanent injunction in interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, until and unless the plaintiff is lawfully dispossessed, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were owners of land bearing Sy. No. 167/2c situated at Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The defendants formed 30 sites in the said land. Site No. 18 measuring 35 feet x 50 feet was sold in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 2,000/ -. Possession was handed over to him. From the date of the sale deed, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants have sold various sites to other persons. After purchasing the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has put up a structure. He also made a representation with the defendant No. 4 namely the Mysore Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) to regularize the revenue site. The defendant No. 4 issued a notice to the plaintiff and adjacent owners demanding payment of penalty for regularization. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 2,000/ - on 22.12.1988. Once again, a representation was made to MUDA for regularization. There was no reply. Hence, he filed an application before the Mysore City Corporation for regularizing the>khata. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore, a notice was issued to the defendants and the reply was not accepted. Hence, he filed the instant suit seeking for a declaration that he is the absolute owner and for consequential relief for permanent injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 4, through the written statement, denied the suit averments. They stated that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no manner of right to form and sell the sites, without obtaining permission from the Government of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner as well as the very 4th defendant MUDA. The representation as claimed by the plaintiff was denied. That the suit is not maintainable for non -joinder of the necessary party namely the Mysore City Corporation. The structure said to have been put up by the plaintiff is also denied.