GAJULA HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. VADDA HANUMANTHAPPA ALIAS HANUMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.79 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Kalyandurg. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit far declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same with future mesne profits and costs.

(3.) The plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the eastern half of the plaint schedule property measuring an extent of Ac.13.8 cents situated in S. No.250/1B of, Kambadur Village which was purchased by him through a registered sale-deed dated 12-1-1959 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,000/-. The 1st defendant purchased the western half of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of Ac.13.8 cents by a registered sale-deed dated 29-1-1959 for a valid (sic, valuable) consideration of Rs.1,000/-. From the date of purchase the plaintiff as well as the 1st defendant were in possession and enjoyment of the land covered by the respective sale-deeds. Sometime prior to the date of filing of the suit i.e., in the year 1971 the 1st defendant made an application to the Tahsildar for the sub-division of the land covered by Survey No.250/lB. The Tahsildar ordered subdivision of the land of Ac.26-16 cents covered in the said survey number by allotting Ac.13.8 cents of land to 250/1B/1 and another Ac.13.8 cents of land to 250 /IB/2 and forwarded the papers to the Taluka Surveyor for taking necessary action. The Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, ignoring the documents of title of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and contrary to the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, effected unequal sub-division. Thus an extent of Ac.1.27 cents in excess had been sub-divided in favour of the 1st defendant behind the back of the plaintiff. The Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records have no authority to alter the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Taking advantage of the demarcation ordered by the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records, the 1st defendant trespassed into an extent of Ac.1.27 cents covered by A, B, C, D area in June 1973 by ploughing the ridge existing on the land. The 1st defendant has no title to the extent of Ac.1.27 cents included in his land at the time of effecting sub-division of the land. When the plaintiff issued notice, the 1st defendant asserted that he was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.14.35 cents of land. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of Ac.1.27 cents of land from the 1st defendant.