SHANKARAPPA Vs. NARAYANAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -plaintiff claims to have purchased the 'B' schedule property from one Gowramma on 29 -11 -1990. The second plaintiff purchased 'A' schedule property jointly from one Gangamma under a registered sale deed dated 13 -8 -1992. Gowramma derived the property under a Will dated 21 -10 -1983 from her maternal grand -father. Subsequently, both the plaintiffs who were close relatives with one another being the brother and sister have got their lands exchanged by registered Exchange deed dated 23 -8 -1999. As such the first plaintiff became the owner of 'A' schedule lands bearing Sy. No. 35/3B and Sy. No. 35/3C and plaintiff No. 2 that of 'B' schedule land bearing Sy. No. 34/3. That the defendant is the owner of adjacent lands bearing Sy. No. 35/1 and 35/2. That without any concern whatsoever, the defendant attempted to illegally cause interference with the plaintiffs' cultivation of land. Hence, the instant suit was filed for declaration of title and for injunction. The defendant on service of suit summons entered appearance and denied the plaint averments. It was contended that the plaintiffs are not even the owners of the suit schedule properties. That the suit schedule properties has nothing to do with the property owned by the defendant. That the plaintiffs cannot claim that they are in possession of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

(2.) BASED on the pleadings the trial Court framed the following Issues: - -

(3.) WHETHER defendant further prove that nonexistence or non -availability of land of 1st plaintiff when Survey settlement Dept. conducted the survey before plaintiffs exchanging the properties?