RANAPPA MALLAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. SHIVSHANKAR CHANNAMALLAPPA RAYAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are before this Court assailing the divergent judgments rendered by the Courts below. The appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 59/1997. The parties are referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 59/1997 against the defendants seeking to recover the damages of Rs. 20,000.00 with interest at 18% per annum. The case of the plaintiff was that the father of the plaintiff was the owner of the property bearing Panchayat No. 57 situate at Sannur village. The plaintiff has thereafter succeeded to the said property. According to the plaintiff the house was enclosed by a compound wall on the southern side. The compound wall was of 5 feet height and was of 55 feet in length. The wall was situated about 9 feet away from the inner doors of the house. The plaintiff contended that the Panchayat had issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to demolish the compound wall, against which the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No. 494/1996. When the suit was pending consideration, the defendants 1 to 3 who are brothers and being no way connected with the property belonging to the plaintiff had indulged in demolishing the compound wall which was in existence, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff. In that regard, the plaintiff is also stated to have lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police which is registered in Crime No. 73/1996. In that light, the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking a judgment and decree for Rs. 20,000.00 as damages.

(3.) The defendants, on being served with the suit summons, had filed a written statement. The case as put forth by the plaintiff was disputed. It was contended by them that the compound wall as claimed by the plaintiff did not exist and as such the question of defendants having demolished such compound wall did not arise. It was their further contention that the plaintiff in fact had sought to encroach upon the public road by putting up the compound wall to their property due to which the defendants and the general public had complained to the Panchayat who had sought to take action but in any event the defendants did not have the occasion to demolish the compound wall as it did not exist. In that view the defendants had sought dismissal of the suit.