NARAYAN S. KURDEKAR Vs. DAWAL SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is an open site. The plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property, since the date of his purchase in the year 1970. The 2nd defendant was the holder and kabjedar of shetsanadi land of Mariyan Timmasagar of Hubli. The plots were laid down by the defendant No.2, after representing that he has served in the Municipal Borough, Hubli. 2nd defendant has transferred his lease hold rights over the suit property by way of a registered deed dated 07.12.1967, in favour of one Ayeppa Bhemappa Ramannavar of Hubli, who inturn has transferred his right of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, by virtue of a registered sale deed. Possession was given to the plaintiff on the same day. The 2nd defendant also sold his proprietary right in the said plot by way of a registered sale deed on 21.07.1970. Hence, the plaintiff became the full owner of the suit property. After purchase, the property has been subdivided and taxes have been paid. His name is entered in the property registers. He has also stocked materials for construction, stones etc. He sought for conversion of the suit land which was granted. Subsequently, the CTS Officer ordered for deletion of his name and directed the name of the 1st defendant be entered. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Joint Director of the Land Records, who directed that the name of the plaintiff be entered. Even then his name was not entered. 1st defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit property. The plea of the defendant No. 1 that he received the property in a compromise of a suit, cannot be accepted. 2nd defendant has no right to enter into a compromise. It was also specifically pleaded that, the plaintiff has become the owner by virtue of adverse possession. Hence, the instant suit was filed seeking for a declaration that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from disturbing his lawful possession.

(2.) On service of suit summons, the 1st defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. The plaint averments were denied. The description of the suit property was contested. That the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 2nd defendant has no right to transfer his interest over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had no legal right to purchase the property. That the alleged transfer by the 2nd defendant in favour of Ayeppa Bhemappa Ramannavar contravenes the provisions of the Watan Act and Village Officers Abolition Act. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim the property.

(3.) The second defendant has filed his written statement and supported the case of the plaintiff. It was contended that Sy. Nos. 53, 50 and 46 have been allotted by the Government. His father was the absolute owner in possession of the same. After the death of his father, he was doing village service and was in possession of other properties also. Hence, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Neither the 1st defendant nor his father have any right over the suit schedule property namely Sy. No. 53. By obtaining permission from the Government, he has subdivided the suit property and some portions have been sold for valuable consideration. He has sold the permanent lease hold rights in favour of one Ayeppa Bhemappa Ramannavar in 1967, who in turn has transferred the permanent lease hold rights in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has become the full owner and in possession of the same since 1970 without any disturbance and therefore, his possession has been exclusive and he has become the owner of the property. Whatever decree is passed between him and the first defendant is not at all applicable. That he is not the owner nor in possession of the suit property. That he has no objection to decree the suit.