P NARAYANA BHAT Vs. NARASIMHA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in 0. S. 319/1968 challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in R.A. No. 124/1975.

(2.) The original suit was against two defendants for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, the plaintiff claiming to be owner of survey Nos. 108/1, 108/2 and 108/5 of Vittal Padnur village. He alleged in the plaint that on 1-11-1968 both the defendants trespassed into his land survey No. 108/5, and demolished the kattabuni shown as "KKK" in the plaint sketch and cut the three coconut plants which were yielding coconuts and also cut other trees. They also levelled the kattabuni to to the ground by spreading mud. Then they made a big channel measuring 3 feet wide 2 feet deep and 50 feet long at the place where kattabuni stood.

(3.) The defendants denied these allegations and it is unnecessary to traverse into their defence as the appeal could be disposed of on a short point. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant died and his legal representatives were not brought on record in time and later an application was filed for setting aside the abatement as against the defendant but the trial court dismissed the application. Thus the suit proceeded only against the first defendant, the plaintiff not challenging this order of dismissal of his application for setting aside the abatement. Ultimately, the trial court found that because the estate of the 2nd defendant was not represented by bringing his L.Rs. on record, the entire suit failed and nevertheless considered the other issues also and dismissed the suit.