MARUTI Vs. TIPPANNA SIDDAPPA DALAWAYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 68/2005, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hukkeri, has come up in this second appeal, impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in dismissing his suit for possession and mesne profits, by judgment and decree dated 16.8.2008, which is confirmed by the lower appellate Court in R.A. No. 19/2008, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hukkeri, by its judgment dated 2.11.2011.

(2.) IN this second appeal an application in I.A. No. 1/2012 is filed seeking to produce a PT sheet, which is prepared by the revenue department on 13.6.2012, wherein it is observed that a portion of land bearing Sy. No. 344/1 of Hukkeri village, Hukeri taluka, Belagavi district is encroached by the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 345, situated on the western side of the said land, to demonstrate that the encroachment pleaded by the plaintiff in the original suit can be established through this document.

(3.) IN the trial Court the defendant denied the allegation of encroachment and also correctness of the PT sheet, which was relied upon by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is an employee of Revenue Department and therefore by utilizing his influence in the office he has got the said document prepared without notice to him. Based on said defence, issues were framed and parties were called upon to adduce evidence. Though the plaintiff adduced evidence as PW.1, he did not examine the author of the PT sheet on which he relied upon and did not produce any document to demonstrate the alleged encroachment by the defendant and in the absence of acceptable evidence and also in view of the fact that he is a person from the revenue department and that there being no proof of notice to defendant before conducting survey and drawing of PT sheet relied upon by the plaintiff, the trial Court did not believe the document relied upon by him and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court in R.A. No. 19/2008. Thereafter this present appeal is filed impugning the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.