ERNATH Vs. SRI. DIGAMEER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 20.7.1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Basavakalyan, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16 of 1995, arising out of the order dated 20.6.1995 passed by the Munsiff, Basavakalyan in O.S.No. 22 of 1994 on IA 1 filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE trial Court on the basis of the revenue record entries opined that the Plaintiff (revision Petitioner herein) was in possession of the suit land and granted temporary injunction. An appeal having been preferred by the Defendants before the appellate court, the Civil Judge has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court made on 20.6.1995 taking the view that the trial Court did not taken into consideration the sale deed dated 19.1.1976 which was executed by the Plaintiff's father and his uncle. The lower appellate court opined that the boundaries of the land sold under a registered sale deed dated 19.1.1976 show that Defendant -1 appears to have purchased the land bearing Survey No. 144/7 from the Plaintiff and another. It further opined that the boundaries of the land shown in the sale deed deal with Survey No. 144/7. The lower appellate court opined that the trial court acted arbitrarily in not considering the sale deed and entirely relied on the entries in the record of rights of the suit land. It also opined that due to incorrect numbers given in the sale deed, revenue entries in the name of Defendant -1 came to be wrongly mentioned. The lower appellate court further observed that it is a well established principle of law that where description of the property by boundaries of the land and survey number of the land and there is conflict, then the property described by the boundaries to prevail.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Manikappa Patil, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner and Sri. K. Appa Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondent.