CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LTD Vs. M SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant before the trial Court in O. S. No. 311/1989. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein praying for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of 'b' schedule suit property and for its possession after determining exact area of encroachment by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the sole ground that the appellant herein had established his right over the suit property i. e. . 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Sy. No. 19, Kasaba Hobli, Chikamagalur taluk, on the basis of adverse possession and having accepted the plea of the appellant, based on the adverse possession, the trial court, thus dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff giving rise to an appeal being filed by him before the lower appellate Court in R. A. No. 87/94 Learned Judge of the lower appellate Court after appreciating the case of the parties and in the light of the judgment rendered by the trial Court, came to a conclusion that the defendant had failed to establish his title by adverse possession because the element of animus was found missing and therefore, as the said factor was one of the important ingredients of claiming title by adverse possession, the lower appellate Court disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and the appellant herein was directed to handover possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and also ordered an enquiry into the mesne profits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the lower appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel Sri chikkanagoudar for the respondent-plaintiff and though the Court waited for sufficient length of time in the hope that the learned counsel for the appellant would turn up and submit his arguments, it was of no use and none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, left with no other alternative, this Court heard the counsel for the respondent in full and thus the following judgment is being delivered under the said circumstances.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case as could be seen from the pleadings of the parties before the Court below is that the respondent-plaintiff claiming to be the owner of the suit 'a' and 'b' schedule properties having got the same under a family partition on 20-4-1981 filed the suit stating that the defendant who is the appellant herein being the owner of a coffee estate commonly known as Arabic Cool estate encroached upon a portion of the property of the plaintiff in Sy. No. 19 to an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Mavinahalli village and despite requests by the respon-dent, the appellant refused to surrender the encroached area to the plaintiff and thus, the cause of action arose in June 1986 compelling the respondent to file the suit and he claimed the relief as stated above. The said suit was contested by the appellant herein by taking a specific stand even in the written statement that the appellant has been in possession of the 'b' schedule property after having purchased the entire Arabidacool Coffee estate under the sale deed dated 16-7-1967 and since then the appellant has been enjoying the suit 'b' schedule property as full owner and as such, the suit of the plaintiff does not merit any consideration and further more the appellant had planted number of coffee seedling and shade trees and some of the trees are more than 20 years old and on these grounds, the appellant sought for dismissal of the suit.