(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for Respondent No.1(a).
(2.) It is found that though the Trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the appellant - plaintiff, granting substantial relief in declaring that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit property bearing Panchayath No.6 -149 of Balaganur village and a further declaration that the Mutation No.101 for the year 1984 -85 in respect of House No.6 -124/1 of Balaganur village and construction permission issued in respect of House No.6 -124/1 and New No.6 - 162 was null and void and ineffective in favour of the plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court on more than one count. The Lower Appellate Court has categorically found that the identity of the property and the location was in serious doubt, as there were contradictory documents produced by the plaintiff and consequently, though the suit was filed in the year 1993 and pleadings having been completed thereafter, it is only in the year 2003 that the plaintiff had sought the additional relief of declaration, converting the suit into a comprehensive one, when it was initially filed only for a bare injunction. The Lower Appellate Court has found that such a relief could not have been permitted to have been incorporated, for there was a bar of limitation and without framing an issue on limitation, the same having been allowed, was not in accordance with law.
(3.) Further, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the defendant was not denying the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the land in question but was contending that it was not located in the place where the plaintiff sought to assert it was situated, and thereby the defendant stood the risk of being deprived of his own property, the contest thus projected was not addressed in its true perspective. Therefore, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court on these aspects, cannot be faulted.