KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. HEMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 93 of 1971, challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Civil Station, Bangalore, dated 22-2-1975, by which their suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction is dismissed, with costs Suit property is S.No. 107 of Byadarhalli Village in Civil Station, Bangalore.

(2.) Plaintiff-1 claims to be the purchaser of different sites, alleged to have been formed in the land, on 8-1-1960, from Hemanna-1st defendant; he has sold different sites to other plaintiffs, who in turn have sold them to yet others. On the same day i.e. 8-l-1980, other plaintiffs, also claim to have purchased various sites in the said survey number from 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession. Admittedly on the alleged sites no structures have come up and the land continues to be vacant.

(3.) In retrospect, it is necessary to narrate certain facts, regarding this land, which has been the subject matter of several orders, transactions and a couple of suits. It is admitted that it was an inam land ; one A Michael was the Khayam guttedar. It is said that on 18-3-1942, A. Michael sold the land in favour of B. S. Ramakrishnappa (defendant-2). On 28-10-1942, Michael, in his capacity as khayam guttedar, is alleged to have passed an order for conversion, permitting the land to be used for building purposes. Reliance for this assertion is placed on Exhibit B-24, dated 28-10-1942 which evidences a receipt of Rs. 120/- from B. S. Ramakrishnappa for S. Nos. 107 and 106. Apropos, the original document is not produced and Exhibit P-24 is a true copy. Fact remains that there is no order of conversion, passed by Michael. However on 8-4-1971, the Tahsildar, Bangalore North, passed an order of conversion, but that order was withdrawn on 12-12-1971. Resultant position is that the land remains an agricultural land.