LAKSHMAIAH Vs. MAHADEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) Kollegal, thereby partly allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.1 to 4 except by taking recourse to law.

(2.) APPELLANTS in this appeal were defendants in the trial court. Respondent filed suit O.S.No.125/1995 seeking relief of declaration of her title over the suit properties and for permanent injunction. She asserted that suit properties originally belonged to one Mallaiah, father of the plaintiff. He died in the year 1994. Before his death, he executed a General Power of Attorney on 13.4.1993 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule lands. According to the plaintiff, Mallaiah also executed three registered wills dated 7.3.1988, 22.7.1991 and 24.7.1992 bequeathing the suit schedule lands in favour of the plaintiff along with others. Thus, as per the General Power of Attorney and the wills, plaintiff continued in possession of the schedule lands as absolute owner thereof. It was alleged that defendants were the owners of adjacent lands and had no right, title and interest over the schedule lands and were attempting to trespass into the suit schedule properties, hence, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking declaration and injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit. They denied the assertion that Mallaiah was the owner of the property. They contended that Mallaiah had no right to bequeath the properties and the registered wills were concocted. They denied the possession of plaintiff over the suit property. They came up with a defence that they were cultivating the suit schedule properties since the date of their forefathers and from the time of their father. The suit schedule properties were part of the tank bed belonging to the Government. Said properties were in unauthorized cultivation of their father. In the RTC extract, name of defendants came to be entered along with their father. They were paying kandayam to the Government. The Government of Madras issued Darkasth grant in respect of item No.2 in favour of Mariya, who was none other than the grand father of the defendants. They urged that the revenue records probablised their contention regarding grant and their actual possession. It was also urged that Mallaiah -father of plaintiff had questioned the grant by filing an appeal No.157/1987 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal came to be dismissed and the said fact was deliberately not disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint.