KRISHNAMURTHY SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA, SRI PRAKASH SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA, SRI BAGAVARAJ SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA AND SRI CHIDANANDAPPA SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA Vs. SRI KARIAPPA SON OF LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, SRI SHANKARAPPA SON OF LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, SR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 139/1987. The suit in question was filed seeking for a judgment and decree of declaration and permanent injunction. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 16.08.1995. The plaintiffs were therefore before the Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No. 61/2001. The Lower Appellate Court on re -appreciation of the materials on record and also considering the application filed seeking for production of additional documents, has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified and as such, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by its judgment dated 22.01.2007. Against the concurrent findings and judgments rendered by the Courts below, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this second appeal.

(2.) THE parties are referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

(3.) IN the light of the contention urged, a perusal of the papers would indicate that the plaintiffs were before the Trial Court seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Insofar as the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, it is not in dispute, inasmuch as they are cousins being the sons of the brothers. It is in that context, the plaintiffs contended before the Trial Court that the property measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Sy. No. 49/2p was assigned to the share of the father of the plaintiffs on effecting the partition. The hud -bust was carried out and there were bunds separating the property and as such, in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners having succeeded to the same from their father. It is in that context, the contention had been put forth that there is interference by the defendants and the relief was sought.