RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL S/O G.C. AGARWAL Vs. JAYAMMA W/O PAPANNA, ANJANAPPA S/O PAPANNA AND MUNIRAJ S/O PAPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree passed by the Court of VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 4262/1993.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellant claims to have purchased the schedule property from Lakshminarayan Mane by a registered sale deed, dt. 29.10.1987. The schedule property is a Khaneshmari land measuring 40 1/2 Ã - 54 bearing khaneshmari No. 202 of Hebbal Village. He claims to have got the khatha in respect of the schedule property transferred to his name and has been paying the tax. To safeguard the schedule property, he began to construct the slab compound but the respondents came in his way. He filed the suit and sought the relief of permanent injunction. The first respondent is the mother and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. The defence of the respondents before the Trial Court is that the land at Sy. No. 122/2 of Hebbal village measured 1 acre 18 guntas. Out of the said lands, 30 guntas were sold to Munoji Rao; the respondent retained the possession of 27 guntas of the said land. It is their unmistakable case that the entire extent of the land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas is purchased by one Kempakka, mother -in -law of the first respondent by a registered sale deed, dt. 24.10.1939. On the death of the said Kempakka and her son Papanna (husband of the first respondent and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3), the respondents inherited the said property.

(3.) WHAT order or relief? 4. The appellant got himself examined as PW -1. marking the documents from Ex.P.1 to P.5. The first respondent got herself examined as DW -1 marking the documents from Ex.D.1 to D.4. On considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on the record, the Trial Court answered the contentious issues in favour of the respondents and dismissed the suit.