K.BHAVANI Vs. DAMODAR NAIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS.No.325/1997 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Udupi, has come up in this second appeal impugning the divergent finding rendered in RA.No.126/2000 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Udupi.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under: The plaintiff claims herself to be in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.217/4 of Puttur village, Udupi Taluk. The relief sought for by her is, perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and others claiming through or under him from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of aforesaid property, which is suit 'A' schedule property. She had also sought for a direction to the defendant to handover vacant possession of a portion of suit 'A' schedule property shown in Red colour to the plaint sketch and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) The reliefs sought for by the plaintiff are based on the pleading that the land bearing Sy.No.217/4 measuring to an extent of 18 cents is Government barren land, which is in her adverse possession and enjoyment. The defendant, who has no manner of right, title or interest in the said property is disturbing her possession and enjoyment and he has clandestinely enclosed a portion of suit 'A' schedule property i.e., a portion of 18 cents of land by putting up a barbed fence to the said portion. Though an averment regarding adverse possession is made by the plaintiff, what is the extent which is encroached by the plaintiff adverse to the interest of the State is not stated in the plaint. Incidentally, State is not a party in this proceedings, hence, there is no opportunity to the State to state whether the suit land is Sarkari vacant land or otherwise, according to the revenue records maintained by it.