GAYATHRI Vs. NAGARATHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree dated 9.3.2007 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.9032/2004.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to by the trial Court.

(3.) Case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property along with some other properties of Munekolalu village originally belong to one Late Muninanja Reddy, the grand father of the second plaintiff/father-in-law of the first plaintiff/father of the defendant. It is further pleaded that in the year 2001 there was a partition between the brothers and sisters under the registered partition deed. In the said partition, though the defendant/sister was not entitled to any share in the property as she was given in marriage, performed about 40 years back, the brothers agreed to give some portion of the land to her. Accordingly, husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff Nagarajareddy so also Srinviasa Reddy the brothers of the defendant agreed to give one site each to the defendant totally measuring 2.2 guntas. Accordingly, the parties were put into possession of the respective shares allotted under the said registered partition deed. It is further pleaded that the defendant started causing obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiffs. That on 2.12.2004, the defendant performed pooja and began to dig foundation in the suit schedule property and thereby the defendant has encroached the suit land to an extent of 10 feet North to South and 40 feet - East to West. However, the plaintiffs approached the Police by lodging complaint. The Police asked the plaintiffs since it is a civil matter, to approach the Civil Court to get the matter decided. It is further pleaded that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the encroached portion of 10 feet North to South and 40 feet East to West and the defendant is making illegal construction in the said portion of the land. Hence, there was cause of action to institute the said suit.