ABBAIAH REDDY Vs. CHINNASWAMYLABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the defendant in O.S.No.3947/1990 on the file of XXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2002.

(2.) The relationship between plaintiffs and the original defendant Abbaiah Reddy is shown in the pedigree as given below:

(3.) From the pedigree it is seen that Hanumappa and Appayanna were the sons of Doddaobalappa. Annayyappa was the son of Hanumappa, and Venakataswamy Reddy, B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy and Abbaiah Reddy were the sons of Appayyanna. On 31.8.1938, there took place partition among Annayyappa, Venkataswamy Reddy, B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy and Abbaiah Reddy. The suit property is 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2 of Doddabanasawadi Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. In the partition dated 31.8.1938, the Western portion of the suit property fell to the share of Venkataswamy Reddy and the Eastern portion to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy. Since this land was a Kayam Gutta and Jodi Inam land, after coming into force of Karnataka (Personal Land & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), the suit land vested with the Government and thereafter B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy claimed occupancy rights by making application to the concerned authority. The occupancy right was also granted. Then Venkataswamy Reddy, to whom the Western portion of the suit property had been allotted, died and his son B.V. Srinivasa Reddy sold the Western portion to B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy by executing a sale deed on 30.8.1969. Thus B.H.Ramaswamy Reddy became the absolute owner of the entire suit property. He was actually in possession of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.22/2, but gunta land on Eastern side was utilized for formation of road and only 4 guntas of land remained with the possession of B.H. Ramaswamy Reddy. He died on 15.1.1980 and his sons i.e., the plaintiffs succeeded to their father's property. The defendant attempted to dig the earth in the suit property for laying foundation and then to construct a building. In the aforesaid partition no part of suit property was given to the defendant, yet he interfered with the plaintiffs' possession and therefore the plaintiffs brought a suit seeking declaration of their title in respect of suit property and consequentially they sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession.