MAHANTASWAMIGALU GURU Vs. CHAIRMAN GRAMA PANCHAYAT OF MANAGOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for declaration and injunction that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land in C.B No. 1686 (Sy. No. 1233) measuring 4 acres 20 guntas, situated at Managuli village, Bagewadi Taluk was decreed by the trial Court, but came to be reversed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this second Appeal.

(2.) It is claimed that the suit land is the ancestral property of Math-plaintiff. Math is in possession and enjoyment of the property. During 1940 by creating false documents the suit land is separated in the R of R behind the back of the plaintiff and the name of the Local Board Oversear was entered in the R of R by showing Hindu Smasan in Kabjedar Colony of R of R which has no value. The plaintiff and his predecessor in title has never consented to create such document. The suit land was never taken possession from the plaitniff by the defedant nor was there is any acquisition. Therefore when there was obstruction to the plaintiff's enjoyment, the suit came to be filed.

(3.) The first defendant who is the Deputy Commissioner, represented by B. Bagewadi, did not file written statement at all despite time being granted and the second defendant the Chairman, Grama Panchayat also did not file written statement though both are represented by advocates. On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit though in my opinion under Order VIII Rule 10 the suit should have been decreed without even embarking upon the luxury of trial. The appellate Court unfortunately without appreaciating either the evidence or the law, has chosen to reverse the judgment, trying to look holes in the case of the plaintiff. It is not the duty of the appellate Court to go into the pleadings made by the plaintiff and the question of veracity or otherwise so long as the subject matter of the suit has no bar under Order VII Rule 11. In any event, the dismissal of the suit by the appellate Court is not sustainable even on the reasoning given by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether the dismissal of the suit by the first appellate Court without following Order VIII Rule 10 is proper. Order VIII Rule 10 is as follows;