CHIKKARANGAIAH @ PUTTAIAH Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed the present writ petitions against the Order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, rejecting the interlocutory applications filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and Order XVIII Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to recall and re-open the case, in O.S. No.333/2000, with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the Trial Court, filed suit for declaration of title in respect of 'B' schedule property being a part of 'A' schedule property and seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the construction put up on 'B' schedule property at her cost or in the alternative to permit the plaintiff to demolish the said construction by recovering cost from the defendant and for recovery of possession of the 'B' schedule property. Plaintiff has also sought for mesne profits and perpetual injunction against the defendant or any persons acting on her behalf.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property. The defendant has been interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. She is attempting to encroach upon the vacant place in the schedule property by putting up construction thereof. It is the further contention of the petitioner that Khaneshumari No.712/15 was purchased by the father of the petitioner Teetekempaiah from one Manappa, Son of Doddaiah. The husband of the defendant clandestinely got changed its katha into his name and then the defendant got changed it into her name after the death of her husband during the pendency of the suit and when injunction order was in force. Under the guise of obtaining licence, she has encroached upon East to West 40 ft. North to South 13 ft. on the North-East corner of the schedule property and put up construction by keeping vacant space to the east of Khaneshumari No.712/15 measuring 20 ft x 15 ft only. Abutting to the Khaneshumari No.712/15, there was house property of the father of plaintiff and Khaneshumari Nos.106, 713/13 are yet to be divided. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the suit for the reliefs as aforesaid.