EDIGARA LAKKAPPA @ LAKSHMAPPA Vs. HAMMIGI VEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties situated at Manihalli village, Hadagali taluk, morefully described in the schedule to the plaint. He purchased the same by virtue of a registered sale deed from Edigara Thimmappa on 28/6/1969. Ever since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He is paying land revenue. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. The defendants having colluded with the revenue officials, changed the mutation regarding the suit schedule properties on to their names. The defendants interfered with the suit schedule properties on 30/3/2008 trying to obstruct agricultural operations of the plaintiff. Hence, the instant suit was filed seeking for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction.

(2.) On service of suit summons, defendants put in their appearance. First defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. He submitted that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit against the husband of the second defendant and Edigara Anjinappa and Edigara Manjunatha in O.S. No.72/1992. The suit was dismissed for default on 19/8/1993. It was not restored. Thereafter, he filed O.S. No.349/1995. It was also dismissed. It was not restored. Thereafter, the instant suit has been filed on the same cause of action. The second suit is not maintainable on the very same cause of action. Hence, the suit requires to be dismissed. The suit is barred by limitation. That the suit property was standing the name of the one Edigara Holiyappa, who is the elder brother of the father of the first defendant. That a partition took place between the brothers of Edigara Thimmappa on 26/6/2001. The first item of the suit schedule properties and the second item of the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Thimmappa. Ever since the date of the partition, the lands are in the respective possession of the parties. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: