DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR Vs. C. SRINIVAS (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mysuru in R. A. No. 7/2004 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mysuru in O.S.No.321/1995 is confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

(3.) Original Plaintiff filed O.S.No.321/1995 against the defendants for declaration, possession and permanent injunction, mesne profits and costs. It was contended that plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the landed property in Sy.No.82, New Nos. 192, 193 and 194, totally measuring 17 acres 20 guntas described in the schedule to the plaint; this land was granted to his father by the 3rd defendant vide grant certificate dated 10.4.1956, the father of the plaintiff was put in possession of the same. After the death of his father in the year 1981, the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It was further contended that defendants 1 and 2 interfered with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by making attempts to plant trees in the land. The plaintiff complained to the defendants in writing, accordingly he was called upon to produce certain documents which were produced with, as demanded. Despite the same, as no action was taken by the defendants, the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before this Court, which came to be disposed of, directing the defendants to consider and dispose of the representations filed by the plaintiff within a period of two months. Thereafter, several requests were made by the plaintiff not to proceed with the planting of saplings in the suit property, but the same not having yielded any positive results, O.S. 321/1995 was filed before the trial Court, which came to be decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred R.A.No.7/2004 before the lower Appellate Court. In the said appeal proceedings, an application was filed by the defendants under Order 16, Rule 7 , CPC seeking permission to examine the Tahasildar, Mysuru Taluk and for direction to the Tahasildar to produce certain documents. The Appellate Judge remanded the matter to the Trial Court to provide an opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence. The said judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 was challenged by the plaintiffs in M.F.A.No.34/2009 and this Court by judgment and order dated 26.11.2009, set aside the judgment dated 16.03.2009 observing that the Court has to consider the question whether grounds have been made by defendants as provided under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC to adduce additional evidence. After remand by this Court, the learned Appellate Judge considered the case in the light of the observations made by this Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, original plaintiff died and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents.