REVANAPPA S/O VEERBHADRAPPA TELAMANI Vs. GANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred; by the appellant/ defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavakalyan, camp at Humnabad dismissing R.A. No.44/2008 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Humnabad in O.S.No.26/2006.

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and also the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/plaintiff on admission.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant taken this Court to the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and submitted that so far as the contention of the appellant/defendant before the Trial Court that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time in view of the document Ex.D -3 as the plaintiff was having clear knowledge about the said alleged encroachment of 5 feet towards southern side and 15 feet towards eastern side of the house of the defendant. He made the submission regarding this pleading of the appellant/defendant both the Courts below were not taken correctly the pleadings nor the correct issue has been framed. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that in view of these materials it clearly goes to show that the suit of the plaintiff clearly barred by law of limitation and this aspect has been completely ignored by the Courts below. Hence it is substantial question of law to be considered in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal be admitted and the substantial question of law on the said aspect is to be framed by this Court.