CHANNABASAPPA Vs. HANUMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/plaintiffs have come up with this appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 28. 1. 2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Koppal in R. A. No. 8/2000 reversing the judgment and decree dated 4. 2. 2000 passed by the civil Judge (Junior Division), Koppal in O. S. No. 65 of 1995, praying to set aside the same and to restore the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 65 of 1995.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as their ranking before trial Court.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs have filed a suit through their natural guardian and mother before the trial Court seeking for the relief of declaration of their ownership over the suit schedule lands and to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties contending that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit lands bearing Sy. No. 85 measuring 13 acres 19 guntas and land in Sy. Nos. 70/a measuring 26 acres 13 guntas of Huvinal Village. It is their case that Land Tribunal, Koppal has granted occupancy rights in favour of their grandfather one Balappa in the year 1977 in LRY/tnc/269/74-75; that their grandfather was cultivating the suit lands till his death and occupancy right has been granted in his favour, that he died on 24. 9. 1993 leaving behind his wife Gowramma and the son gavisiddappa - father of plaintiffs. After his death, his wife Gowramma was cultivating the suit lands till her death in the year 1992. That both the lands are standing in the name of plaintiffs under the guardianship of their grandmother; even after the death of Gowramma, the same continued to appear in the revenue records as the same was not changed due to illiteracy of the plaintiffs, that mother of the plaintiffs - Paddmma is their guardian and both the plaintiffs are under her care and custody and she is cultivating the lands; that both the lands are adjacent to each other and there is a road in between the said two lands. That the defendants inspite of having no right, title or interest over the suit lands, interfered and obstructed cultivation of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. Hence, they filed the suit through their natural guardian and mother before the trial court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.