MANJANNA Vs. R SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Holalkere, in R. A. No. 210/2001 (old R. A. No. 13/2000) dated 24. 06. 2003, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Additional Civil judge (Jr. Dn.), Hosadurga, in O. S. No. 584/1993 dated 22. 11. 1999 and consequently, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction against the defendant in respect of the schedule property i. e. , a vacant site with basement situate at bharamaiahnapalya Village, Srirampura bearing Khatha No. 627 measuring East to West 12 yards (36 feet) and North to South 07 Yards (21 feet) bounded as per the description given in the schedule. It is averred in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff has purchased the scheduled property under the registered sale deed dated 23. 09. 1965 and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff applied to the Grama Panphayath to enter his name in the Khatha in respect of the suit scheduled property and the Secretary of the grama Panchayath, Srirampura visited the spot and issued an endorsement on 04. 12. 1993 stating that the measuring of the suit property mentioned in the sale deed and the measurement found at the time of spot inspection is not tallying and as such the khatha of the suit schedule property cannot be changed in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant who has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property is trying to assert his title and trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and wherefore, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant by filing the written statement denying the material averment made in the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the owner. The averment made in the plaint to the effect that the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 23. 09. 1965 for valuable consideration without notice is denied. The further averment that the plaintiff has put up foundation in the suit property is also denied. It is further averred that amean Nagappa, who is the father of the defendant had a house at Bharamaiahnapalya Village and his father also had two Sites; one in front of the said house and another in the back side of the house and the said Sites were granted to him by the Tahsildar, Hosadurga Taluk and the sites are referred to as Block Nos. 1 and 2. Block No. 1 Site measures East to West 07 Yards and North to South 05 Yards as per the boundaries given in the written statement and Block no. 2 Site measures East to West 07 Yards and North to South 03 Yards bounded as per the description given in the written statement. It is further averred that the father of the defendant has paid the amount to the Tahsildar, Hosadurga in respect of the grant of the said Sites and the Tahsildar has issued 'manedalagala Manjuri' certificate on 03. 12. 1963 and he has acquired the said Sites earlier to the purchase of the suit property by the father of the plaintiff and wherefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit.