KHAJI MOHAMMED KHALID S/O. SHAJ ABDUL AZAEEZ Vs. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS WILD LIFE DIVISION AND RANGE FOREST OFFICER SHETTYHALLI WILD LIFE RANGE@RESPOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. 186/94 on the file of the Addl.Civil Judge.Sr.Dvn), Shimoga, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dtd. 10.09.2001 in so far as it relates to finding on Issue Nos. 2 & 3 leading to the dismissal of the suit has preferred this appeal invoking Order 41 of CPC.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property being agricultural land was purchased jointly along with his other siblings under a Registered Sale Deed dtd. 13.09.1989 for valuable consideration. Having fenced the boundary of the property by use of barbed wire, it is the allegation of the plaintiff that the Department of Survey and Land Records though issued notices to the Forest Department and the plaintiff for a survey on 12.12.1994 to fix the boundary, nevertheless, the defendant -Forest Department dumped mud on the side of the fence and on 8.1.94 removed a portion of the wire fence. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(3.) THE trial court, in the premise of the pleadings of the parties, framed four issues, and an additional issue, recorded the depositions of the four witnesses as PW1 to 4, marked 60 documents as Ex.P1 to P60, while for the defendants one Satish Babu Rai was examined as DW1. The trial court, having regard to the material on record and appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, answered the additional issue in the negative, that the plaintiff did not prove that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. As regards, issue No. 1 whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit property, the trial court answered the issue in the affirmative while in the negative, the issues 2 and 3 and accordingly, by the judgment and decree impugned dismissed the suit with costs.