AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.G. Ramesh, J.—This appeal by the Plaintiff is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.2010 passed by the trial court the Court of the XXXIX Additional Ciry Civil Judge, Bangalore, in the suit in O.S. No. 8710/2006. By the impugned judgment, the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for grant of an order of permanent injunction to restrain the Respondents/Defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property measuring 7 guntas in Survey No. 24/1 situate at Sarakki village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
Defendant No. 1 resisted the suit by filing his written statement denying the claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff. His case is that he had purchased the suit property from the Plaintiffs father Motappa by a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1986 and that he has constructed houses thereon with a compound. The suit property admittedly belonged to the father of the Appellant/Plaintiff who died on 15.10.1995. The trial court, on a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, has found that Defendant No. 1 had purchased the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 23.6.1986-Ex.D1(a) executed by Motappa, the Appellant''s father. The Appellant/Plaintiff, who claims ownership of the suit property by virtue of a will dated 08.10.1982 executed by her father, has not produced it in evidence. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the trial Court:
Further, the first: Defendant has clearly deposed in his evidence that during the course of execution of the sale deed in his favour, the said Motappa handed over certain documents to him and he has produced the same before this Court. Perusal of Ex.D.6- Index of Land of the year 1981-82, clearly reveals that 7 guntas of land, in Sy. No. 24/1 of Sarakki village was granted to Motappa through land Tribunal Likewise, Ex.D. 1(a) 1-Form No. 10 regarding certificate of registration of a tenant as an occupant, clearly reveals that Motappa was registered as a tenant in respect of 7 guntas of land in Sy. No. 24/1 of Sarakki village. This certificate is issued on 22.1.1982. These documents are stated to he handed over by Motappa himself to the first Defendant at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of this first Defendant, i.e. on 23.6.86. These documents clearly depicts that Motappa was granted occupancy right in respect of 7 guntas of land in Sy. No. 24/1 of Sarakki Village. These documents are to be looked mto for the purpose of ascertaining that the property sold by Motappa, in favour of first Defendant is noting but the 7 guntas of land in Sy. No. 24/1. Under these circumstances, it can be held that only some mistake has crept in. the sale deed pertaining to the first Defendant regarding the Sy. No.
Further, it is well established principles of law that when there is any discrepancy in description and identity of the property, the boundaries and extent would prevail.
31...
This portion of evidence of PW3 clearly reveals that suit schedule property claimed by the Plaintiff and also the property found in the schedule of Ex.D1(a), photograph are one and the same. These things are considered only in order to know that, the property claimed by the Plaintiff is nothing but the properly claimed by the first Defendant through registered sale deed dated 23.6.86.
Having regard to the evidence on record, the finding of the trial court that the Appellant has failed to establish her possession of the suit property cannot be said to be erroneous. In my opinion, the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit; the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference. No ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.