ABBAIAH Vs. BYRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 456/1981 is the appellant herein and he is aggrieved by the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed in his favour by the trial Court and dismissing the suit by allowing the appeal preferred by defendant-6. Hence, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in R. A. No. 30/1988 is called in question in this second appeal by him.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties, which are dry lands, are the thoti service inam lands and were attached to the thoti office of the village Thirumalashettyhalli of Hosakote Taluk and the plaintiff purchased the said suit schedule properties under registered sale deed dated 16-3-1967 and since then, he has been in possession of the same. The defendants are among the persons who filed application for regrant of the lands in question and the grant was made in favour of the original grantees i. e. , defendants-1 to 5, and it is the case of the plaintiff that he too has got a right to enjoy the benefit of the grant made in favour of defendants-1 to 5. The plaintiff and also defendant -6 made application before the Tahasildar questioning the regrant made in favour of defendants-1 to 5 and the said application was rejected.

(3.) AGAINST the said rejection order of the Tahasildar, the plaintiff preferred Writ Petition No. 2700/1981 before the this Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed by an order dated 17-2-1981 and the notice issued by the Tahasildar came to be quashed. A further order was passed in the very same writ petition on an application i. e. , LA. No. I filed by the appellant herein seeking a direction to the Tahasildar to accept 15 times the land revenue assessment in respect of the lands in question, and the said application was also allowed by directing the Tahasildar to regularise the sale in favour of the plaintiff by recovering 15 times the land revenue. Therefore, pursuant to these orders, the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. As the defendants attempted to interfere with the suit lands and attempted to damage the standing crops, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit praying for a judgment and decree in his favour for permanent injunction against the defendants.