GANGAIAH Vs. H SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that, one Siddappa had two sons by name Hanumantharayappa and Jayaramaiah. Hanumantharayappa died leaving behind him his sons namely K.H.Gundaiah, K.H.Thimmaiah and K.H.Basavakumar. The land bearing survey No.34/3 of Chikkanahalli village, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, totally measuring 3 acres 7 guntas as shown in the rough sketch to the plaint originally belonged to Siddappa. In 1993, the sons of Siddappa partitioned the above said property under a palupatti dated 08.02.1993. In the above said partition, the eastern half portion of the said land which is marked as ABCF fell to the share of Jayaramaiah and the Western half portion marked as DCFE fell to the share of the sons of Hanumantharayappa. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the original palupatti in respect of property shown as FCDE portion in the rough sketch is in the custody of plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 25.05.1996. Since then the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the sale deed, the revenue records are made out in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property and they are making hectic efforts to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for a decree of permanent injunction from restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(2.) ON service of summons, the defendants filed their written statement admitting the relationship between them. However, they denied that the suit schedule property belonged to one Siddappa. They contended that the land bearing Survey No.34/3 measuring 3 acres and 7 guntas of the Chikkanahalli village was the property of Siddamma W/o. Siddappa. It is false to say that the sons of Siddappa namely Hanumantharayappa and Jayaramaiah partitioned Survey No.34/3 under palupatti dated 08.02.1993. It is also denied that the eastern half portion had fallen to the share of Jayaramaiah and western half portion had fallen to the share of Hanumantharayappa. The rough sketch filed by the plaintiff was also denied by the defendants and they also denied that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property FCDE portion. It is contended by the defendants that the property bearing Survey No.34/3 was purchased by Siddamma w/o. Siddappa under registered sale deed dated 20.12.1947 and after her death, the sons of Siddappa namely Hanumantharayappa and Jayaramaiah partitioned the said property during 1968. In the said partition, northern half measuring 1 acre 23 1/2 guntas had fallen to the share of Jayaramaiah. Since the date of partition, there is a bund in the East -West direction which bifurcates, the share of Hanumantharayappa and Jayaramaiah. Towards the north of the bund is the land of Hanumantharayappa and towards the south of the bund is the land of Jayaramaiah and they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. In the year 1971, both of them left the village. The original palupatti of the year 1968 was handed over to Jayaramaiah as he was the elder son of Siddappa. At the time of leaving the village, Jayaramaiah handed over the possession of his share of landed property to the first defendant and the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the same and thereafter, Jayaramaiah sold the same property in favour of the first defendant under registered sale deed dated 15.05.1996 for valuable consideration. It is also contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable because the revenue authorities and survey authorities had already fixed the boundaries to the defendants property and have conducted a survey and phodi. Even the HIssa survey book is made in the name of the defendant, after due enquiry and inspection by the Tahsildar. Hence, he submits that the plaintiff has no right to title over the suit schedule property and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and re -casted issues.