H.T. SUBBARAYA GOWDA Vs. K.T. YOGENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant's counsel for admission. Counsel for respondent No.1 also argues.

(2.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.8/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikmagalur. In respect of 5 acres of land in Sy. No. 213 of Melinaheggade in Kulur Village, Megunda Hobli, Koppa Taluk, he filed suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or anybody claiming under them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiff's case is that there existed a large extent of land in Sy. No. 99 of Kulur Village. During the year 1960-61 the Assistant Commissioner of Tarikere Sub-Division made a temporary grant of the said land in his favour for coffee cultivation. Thereafter, during the year 1962- 63, the grant was confirmed by issuing a permanent grant certificate. He states that the land granted to him was later on renumbered as Sy. No. 213. The plaintiff further stated the defendants own adjoining property in Sy. No. 228. Northern boundary of the suit property is a stream called 'Jenukatte sarakalu'. The defendants property is situated beyond this stream and therefore according to the plaintiff the stream is the boundary for his land and the defendants land. While printing the survey number of the land in the village map, a mistake crept in, and he applied for correcting the mistake. When the plaintiff started felling trees after obtaining permission from the forest authorities, the defendants caused obstruction and also filed suit O.S.43/1998 against the plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of Sy. No. 228. The plaintiff appeared in the said suit. In the proceedings of the said suit, the first defendant filed a memo stating that he had no objection to remove the timber growth found in the suit property, i.e., Sy. No. 213 and thereafter plaintiff obtained permission from the forest department and transported the timber. Even thereafter the defendants continued to disturb the plaintiff's possession over the suit property by falsely claiming that the portion of the suit property is a part of their land in Sy. No. 228. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title and injunction.

(3.) Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the stream is not the boundary between his land and the plaintiff's land. According to the defendants, the stream passes through their land in Sy. No.228. In the village map, it is shown that jenukatte sarakalu runs from East to West in the middle of Sy. No. 228. They stated that it is the intention of the plaintiff to lay claim on their property.