ISHWARA NAIK Vs. AISAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant is the appellant herein and the respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. THE supplemental defendants before the court below had identity of interest with the first defendant and hence they have not been made parties herein. THE original plaintiff and the first defendant claimed under two different persons, the very same property comprised in R.S.No. 79/1A and the building there on. THE original plaintiff claimed to have purchased the said property by Ext.A4 deed from one Moideenkunhi, who in turn purchased the same from Iswara Bhat as per a document of 1960. THE plaintiff so claimed the land and properties and sought for recovery of possession of the thatched building situated in the said property. THE first defendant however contended that the said property never belonged to Iswara Bhat and the land owner was one Thimmanna Joysha. THE tenant of Thimmanna Joysha, Choma Naik got assignment of the land and the building thereon from the Land Tribunal by S.M.No.915/1977. This Choma Naik is the brother-in-law of the first defendant and the first defendant was occupying the building, with his permission, was his contention. THE trial court decreed the suit by judgment dated 31-1-1997. An appeal was filed by the first defendant which also was rejected resulting in the filing of the above second appeal.

(2.) THE respondents herein who were the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, though served with notice has not chosen to appear in the proceedings. THE only contention raised by the learned counsel Sri.K.G.Gowri Shankar Rai, when the matter came up for hearing was with respect to two interlocutory applications filed by the appellant in the first appeal, for accepting three documents, which were not earlier in the possession or knowledge of the appellant. Both the said applications, is seen to have been filed, from the records available before this Court, but was not considered at all. I find from the records that I.A.No.240/2000 was filed on 6-6-2000 and there were different posting dates noted on the reverse. However, no orders are seen to have been passed in the said I.A. I.A.No.587/2001 was filed on 11-7-2001 and it was posted for counter to 6-8-2001. THEre is no further orders endorsed on the reverse of the I.A