YAMANAPPA HALAPPA NAIKWADI; MARUTI HALAPPA NAIKWADI; SHIVARAI HALAPPA NAIKWADI AND ORS Vs. SIDDAPPA HALAPPA NAIKWADI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though these appeals arise from different judgments and decrees of the courts below, they have been connected having regard to the parties being common in both the cases and also one item of the suit properties being common in both the matters. Both these appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) R.S.A.No.653/1999 is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.377/1988. Original plaintiff Siddappa and defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit are brothers. That suit was filed by Siddappa-original plaintiff-respondent herein since dead, represented by his legal representatives, seeking declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. By judgment and decree dated 20/6/1998 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Raibag, the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the respondent herein filed R.A.No.20/1998 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gokak. The first appellate court by judgment and decree 25/6/1999, partly allowed the appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside. The plaintiff/respondent herein Siddappa was declared to be the owner in possession of 5acres 23 guntas northern strip in R.S.No.205A/2 in all measuring 13 acres 23 guntas in Byakud Village in Raibag Taluk. Consequently, the appellants herein were restrained from causing obstruction to the plaintiff in his possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land. Further, the plaintiff and defendants were held to be the joint owners of the remaining land in Sy.No.23/3 of Byakud Village as tenantsin- common. That as there was partition in respect of that land, thereby the defendants-appellants herein were restrained from causing obstruction to the plaintiffrespondent over the portion of the land being in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. But the exact extent and location of strip of the land of each of the plaintiff and defendants in this land was to be reckoned in O.S.No.586/1989, which was pending before the trial court at Raibag. That suit was filed by the appellants herein.

(3.) Thus, the second appeal has been preferred by the defendants in O.S.No.377/1988 and the appeal (R.S.A.No.653/1999) was admitted on 13/10/1999 in this Court to consider the following substantial question of law: