JANAKI BAI Vs. SHANKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendants before the Munsiff at bhadravathi seeking for a permanent injunction against the defendants who are the appellants herein in respect of property in Sy. No. 60 to the extent of 5. 11 acres and in Sy. No. 61 to the extent of 5 acres wet land situate in Madishetty Village of Bhadravathi Taluk.

(2.) IT is pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner in possession and cultivating the suit schedule property which is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's father Narayana Rao and after the death of Narayana Rao, the plaintiffs name had been mutated in the RTC and mutation extracts and the plaintiff's property was also attached to the Village Patel's office. After the death of the plaintiffs father, the plaintiff along with his mother filed an application before the assistant Commissioner for re-grant of the land under Section 5 of the Inams Act. The Assistant commissioner rejected the application at the first instance against which appeal was preferred in the District Court, Shimoga in Misc. Appeal 5/1980. The District Judge allowed the application and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the case. After enquiry, the Assistant commissioner passed a re-grant order on 13. 3. 1985 and after re-grant, the plaintiffs name has been mutated in the Record of Rights and the mutation extracts. Further, it is pleaded that the defendants having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property in respect of the same, have been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants have made series of attempts to grab the property and have filed application before the Land Tribunal stating that they are the tenants of the property. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to make an enquiry as the plaint schedule properties were attach to the Patel's Inam Land and thereafter the katha and pahani were separated in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants have preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner during 1988-89 who has dismissed the appeal against which, the defendants have not preferred any appeal, It is also urged that the defendants at no point of time, were cultivating or were in possession of the property. It is the plaintiff who was cultivating the land. Contending that the defendants are powerful and influential and have made futile attempts to displace the plaintiff, the suit came to be filed seeking for permanent injunction.

(3.) IT appears the defendants though were served with notice and had appeared through a counsel, they have not filed the written statement. Ultimately the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, appeal was preferred before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), bhadravathi in RA 15/1998. The said Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the defendants.