G. PONNUSWAMY Vs. V. NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit schedule property from Nagasheshamma on 14.06.2004 by virtue of a registered sale deed who in turn had purchased the property from Venkatappa, Muniyappa and Narayanappa on 28.05.1992. Eversince the date of purchase, he is in possession of the property. The defendant tried to interfere with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, he filed the instant suit for permanent injunction to restraint the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property.

(2.) On service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and denied the plaint averments. He set up a counter claim. He pleaded ignorance of the purchase of the property of the plaintiff. He stated that originally, the property bearing Sy. No. 38 measuring 20 guntas was owned by Muniyappa, Venkataramappa, Venkatamuni and Venkateshlu of Deshihalli Village, it was alienated under the orders of Tahsildar dated 24.12.1981. The have executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of M. Jagannath on 13.02.1984 to safeguard the property of executants. On 21.07.1984, he sold the property to B.A. Seetharamaiah Setty. The khatha was changed and approved plan was obtained to put up construction. The property bearing No. 11 and 12 as in the plan comprising land bearing Sy. No. 38 of Deshihalli Village which is alienated for residential purpose and two sites are adjacent to one another measuring east to west 40 feet, north to south 60 feet. The sites are vacant, even though B.A. Seetharamaiah had obtained necessary documents and approved plan for putting up construction. He has sold the property under registered sale deed to Shankarappa, Mahanthappa, Thottada and handed over relevant documents pertaining to the property and put possession of the same. After purchase of the property, he made an application to the Town Municipal Corporation, Bangarpet and changed the khatha to his name. Hence, the documents show that he is in enjoyment and possession of the property. On 01.09.2004, Nagasheshamma attempted to trespass his property and attempted to remove the stone slabs since he is residing far away. Therefore, he filed a police complaint. The plaintiff is not entitled for any manner of right over the property and interfering with his possession over the property. Therefore, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit and to allow his counter claim.

(3.) In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW -1 and examined three more witnesses and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P24. The defendant examined himself as D.W. -1 and got marked documents Exs. D1 to D24.