KARTHYAYANI AMMA Vs. KAMALAVALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O.S.No.503 of 2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg sought recovery of possession of the suit property - 16 cents in R.S.No.122/1A claiming title over the property but, lost the suit to the respondents/defendants. They preferred A.S.No.14 of 2005 but, the learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg confirmed dismissal of the suit. Hence this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE suit property and other items belonged to the family of appellants and respondents and while so, there was a partition of the suit properties as per document No.3108 of 1972. According to the appellants, they got one acre in R.S.No.122/1A of which they assigned 84 cents towards east. The suit property - 16 cents is the rest of property on the west of the said 84 cents (allegedly forming part of the one acre claimed by the appellants). They alleged that respondents trespassed into the said 16 cents and hence the prayer for recovery of possession. A further contention appellants raised is that the western boundary of the plots allotted to the appellants in the family partition was wrongly described as 'kolly'.

(3.) THE learned counsel has contended that what is involved is only a wrong description of the western boundary of item 1 in the A schedule of partition deed No.3108 of 1972. According to the learned counsel, courts below went wrong in concluding that western boundary description of Ext.B1, property affected the claim of appellants.