T KULLE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No.44/2003 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT, Srirangapatna, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in dismissing his suit for the relief of declaration and injunction with reference to land bearing Sy. No.62/paiki P3 measuring 7 acres 2 guntas of Beechanakuppe village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna taluk.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that suit schedule land was granted in favour of his father Doddahydegowda. According to him land bearing Sy.No.62/P3 totally measure 10 acres 3 guntas, out of which suit land measuring 7 acres 2 guntas belongs to the plaintiff and other extent of land belonges to other defendants i.e. 29 guntas to 10th defendant-Laxmegowda, which the plaintiff refers to as Sy.No.62/P1; 1 acre 10 guntas to 12th defendant- Smt.Gayathramma, which the plaintiff refers to as Sy.No.62/P2 and 1 acre 3 guntas to 11th defendant- Sri.Basavalingegowda, which the plaintiff refers to as land in Sy.No.62. It is contended that when he sought for pucca phodi Durasthi work of his land by producing all relevant records, the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura passed an order dated 22.7.2000 to carry out durasthi work in the name of the original grantee i.e., plaintiff's father under Section 67(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act to an extent of 7 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.62/P3 in Beechanakuppe village, Belagola hobli. It is further contended that 2nd defendant- Deputy Tahsildar, Nadakacheri, Belagola, who had earlier recommended for durasthi work sent adverse reports by suppressing the records and fabricating the documents to help other defendants for extraneous consideration and it is also alleged by plaintiff that officers of ADLR also supported the said act.

(3.) The plaintiff further contend that except plaintiff and defendants 10 to 12, the other defendants 3 to 9 have no manner of right, title or possession over any portion of land in Sy.No.62 and that the obstruction which is caused by them is without any basis and the non-cooperation by the Government officers in conducting haddubast with regard to 7 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.62 based on the grant made to his father Doddahydegowda, is without any basis. Hence, in this background he has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendants for declaration of his title to an extent of 7 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.62/Paike P3 and also permanent injunction against defendant No.3 and others in the original Suit.