I BASAVARAJ Vs. R BASAVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. The suit was filed for the relief of bare injunction in respect of 93 cents forming part of 13.81 acres in S.No.55/1D1 of Adigaratty Village, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgiri District within the four boundaries as mentioned in the suit schedule. The plaintiff claims right, title and interest and possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the strength of Exs.A1 to A5 sale deeds Exs.A6 and A7 Encumbrance Certificates and Ex.A10 Chitta. According to the plaintiff, an extent of 1.33 acres of land in R.S.No.55 of Adigaratti Village was purchased by his father by name Iyyaswamy by a registered document dated 28.09.1931, out of which, he sold 44= cents and 93 cents on 25.6.1936 and 05.12.1936 and he repurchased an extent of 93 cents by a registered document dated 14.1.1940. Thereafter, the plaintiff's father and after the plaintiff's father, his mother and after the plaintiff became major, have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the same was sought to be interfered with by the defendant by attempting to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property without any manner of right, title and interest.

(2.) The suit relief was resisted by the defendant not only by denying right, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff over entire extent of 93 cents in the suit survey number, but also by claiming co-ownership in respect of 1.12 acres in the same survey number. According to the defendant, the suit property measuring 93 cents is not comprised in suit survey number and the defendant is entitled to 93 cents in the suit survey number and the extent belonging to him has already been leased out to one Mahalingam and the said Mahalingam has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) Both the parties in support of their respective contentions examined themselves as PW1 and DW1 and produced Ex.A1 to A18 and B1 documents. The trial court on the basis of the available evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the availability of 93 cents within the four boundaries described in the suit schedule and also failed to prove his exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and suit Survey No.55 was much before the institution of the suit, sub divided and the plaintiff was unable to show the sub division, in which the suit property was comprised. On the other hand, Ex.A10 chitta dated 12.7.1990 stands in the joint names of the plaintiff, defendant and others and the defendant is one of the co-owners of the entire extent comprised in the suit survey number and the plaintiff is hence dis-entitled to claim the relief of injunction against the co-owner and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal AS.27/2002.