BHIMAPPA Vs. ALLISAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' second appeal. The subject-matter of the suit is, property measuring East to West 11 and north to South 25' bearing No. 518 situated at Adgal Railway Station, Badami Taluk, bijapur District, now Bagalkot District.

(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property. His specific case was one basanagouda s/o Rudragouda Patil was the owner and in possession of property located in Nandikeshwar Mandal Panchayat Nos. 518 and 519 of Adagal Railway Station, badami, which he purchased for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 24-9-1990 and he was in possession of the property on the date of sale deed. In the suit schedule property which is shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint sketch, defendants are residing on leave and licence granted by his vendor. At the time of the sale of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement letter in favour of his vendor agreeing to vacate the suit property as and when his vendor request him to vacate. They took time to vacate the property. After purchase of the property when the plaintiff requested him to vacate he did not do so. As he had obtained licence for permission to put up construction and a sanction plan, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration of his title and for possession. Defendants contested the claim and denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. They contended that the suit property belonged to one ramanaik Konappa Naikar who had given it to defendants' grandfather by name hanamappa and they have put up a dwelling house in the suit schedule property thirty years back. They also constructed a tea stall-cum-restaurant which has been given M. P. C. No. 565 by the Panchayath for which they have also obtained electricity connection. After the death of Hanamappa his widow and children have become the owners of the said property. They have perfected their title to the said property by adverse possession. The plaintiff is trying to take possession of the property by force. Therefore, the defendants were constrained to file a suit and obtain an order of injunction. Hence, they contended that the plaintiff has no title to the suit property.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed as many as seven issues. Plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P8. Defendants on their part examined three witnesses and marked documents Exhibits D1 to D9. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that, the plaintiff has established his title to the property; defendants have failed to establish their plea of adverse possession; the agreement executed by the first defendant in favour of his vendor establishes that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property as licencees and, therefore, he decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred a Regular Appeal. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record after formulating the points for consideration by an elaborate reasoning has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by these two judgments and decree, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.