K.H. RAMACHANDRAPPA Vs. THAMMAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the katha bearing No. 743 measuring 46' x 55' originally belongs to one Basappa and his sons. It was sold to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 18.12.1973. Since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner. He filed O.S. No. 124/1975 against his vendors for declaration. It was dismissed. He filed R.A. No. 65/1978 which was allowed. The suit was decreed. Execution No. 46/1982 was taken up and he was granted possession of the suit schedule property measuring 46' x 55'. Thereafter he constructed a building to an extent of 46' x 40' retaining the vacant space measuring 46' x 15', which is the suit schedule property. He has put up a thatched hut over the same. The defendant having no manner of right, title or interest muchless possession started interfering with his possession. He filed O.S. No. 571/1996, which was dismissed as not pressed. Even then the defendant continued the interference. Hence the plaintiff had filed the instant suit.

(2.) THE defendant on service of notice denied the suit averments. He denied the litigation pleaded by the plaintiff. He pleaded he is in possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property since 40 to 50 years. That he is running a petty shop in it. Originally it belongs to Kyatasandra Grama Panchayat and he is paying taxes of it. He has obtained electric connection and he is paying the charges. That the plaintiff has put up the construction in the entire extent of his property and there is no vacant space as claimed. Hence he plead for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed the following issues:

(3.) THE suit was decreed restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same the defendants preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside. The suit was dismissed. Hence the present second appeal by the plaintiff.