C.KENCHAPPA Vs. GIRIJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/9/2013, passed in R.A.No.22/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge, Harihara, and the judgment and decree dtd. 26/5/2011 passed in O.S.No.35/2005 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihara.

(2.) For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

(3.) Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as the same was purchased in the name of C.T.Mallappa S/o Thimmappa who is the brother of plaintiff's father, as per the registered sale deed dtd. 8/3/1976, and ever since, the plaintiff's father and his brothers have been in possession of the suit schedule property. In 1984, plaintiff's father and his brothers got divided the properties by way of deed of partition. In the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's father passed away in 2004, leaving behind the plaintiff and other children as his legal heirs. During his lifetime, a red tiled shed, measuring 20 ft X 20 ft was constructed by the plaintiff's father in Sy.No.3/2, and the description of the suit property is set out in the suit schedule. It is contended that defendant No.1 was working as an agricultural coolie worker under the family of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 sought the permission of the plaintiff that he may be permitted to reside in the suit property temporarily as the suit property was a vacant property. The plaintiff and his family members permitted defendant No.1 to reside on the suit property at no cost. After a certain period, the plaintiff demanded that the defendants to vacate the suit property. Though defendant No.1 promised to vacate initially, later on, he started to delay to vacate the premises on one pretext or another. Defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 filed a suit claiming non-existent right in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.