CHANNEGOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. K. CHIKKA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' Second Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated Oct. 31st, 1991, of the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya in Regular Appeal no. 40 of 1990, arising out of Judgment and decree dated 13-6-1990, passed by Munsiff, Maddur, in Original Suit No. O.S. 396 of 1980, affirming the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title to the effect that plaintiff is the owner of property in dispute as mentioned in Schedule-A, to the plaint, namely, wet land measuring 33 guntas bearing Sy. No. 257, as mentioned in Schedule-A as well as for decreeing the plaintiff's claim of possession with respect to 31/2 guntas of land mentioned in Schedule-B of the said plot.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for (a) decree for declaration, declaring the plaintiff-respondent to be the owner of the land mentioned in Schedule-A, that is, 33 guntas wet land of Sy. No. 257 of Village Koppa, more specifically described by boundaries in the plaint, as well as for decree of possession over 3 and Vt guntas of land thereof more specifically described in Schedule-B.

(3.) The plaintiff's case has been that the plaintiff has been the owner in possession of suit property from the time of their ancestors which measured 33 guntas. The waste water-stream of Koppa tank flows in the middle of Sy. No. 257, in dispute abutting the land in two portions. Plaintiff mentions that in the land records, the halla is considered as Kharab land and the survey records indicates its extent to be 18 guntas, while cultivable land out of the total 33 guntas is shown to be 15 guntas. Plaintiff alleged that they are the owner of the entire property Sy. No. 257, measuring 33 guntas. The plaintiff's further case has been that defendants - appellants, who were the neighbours towards the southern part of the suit land shown in the sketch map by green colour A. B. C. have illegally encroached 31/2 guntas of plaintiff land without any right etc. The plaintiff's case is that 1st defendant encroached upon 1/4th guntas of land belonging to the plaintiff, while defendant-appellant No. 2, encroached upon 11/4th guntas of land and defendant No. 3, encroached upon 2 guntas of land belonging to plaintiff. The entire encroached land has been shown by letters ABCDEF in the sketch map. According to plaintiff's case, all the three defendants-appellants illegally encroached in total 31/2 guntas of plaintiff's land without any land in title.