AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 680 wordsS.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Defendants in O.S. No. 272/1998 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Channagiri, have come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of injunction with reference to land measuring east-west 865 feet and north-south 12 feet carved out in Sy. No. 95/1 of Dondaragatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk. Admittedly the plaintiff and defendants are owners of adjacent property. It is seen that the plaintiff is owner of garden land situated on the western side of the suit schedule property and admittedly the suit property was not having approach road to reach the said property from the main road. Hence the suit schedule property is purchased by him under registered Sale Deed of the year 1972 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Pursuant to that, the said land is mutated to his name and RTC is standing in his name, which portion is referred to at schedule 1-B and all other documents would show that he has purchased the said property.
Since there was disturbance to his possession and enjoyment of the suit property, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, who are owners of land bearing Sy. No. 95/1. In the defence, they had taken a specific contention that the land which is purchased by defendants falls under Sy. No. 95/3 and not under Sy. No. 95/1 and as such suit filed by them is required to be rejected. The Trial Court after framing issues, after recording evidence and after looking into the document at Ex. P-1 has held that plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the same, which he has purchased with the earlier property situated on the western side of the said road and on the eastern side, there is bandi road and to the north remaining land belonging to defendants and south by land of Hanumanthappa and the same tallies with the actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property with the plaintiff and accordingly answered all the issues in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit.
Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal in R.A. No. 150/2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Davangere, wherein the Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of pleadings with reference to documents, has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property as shown in the schedule to suit which is the schedule referred to in Ex. P-1 Sale Deed under which plaintiff has purchased suit schedule property to utilise the same as approach road to reach his property situated adjacent to suit schedule property and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by defendants. As against this, this second appeal is filed impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.
Heard the learned counsel for appellants. Perused the Judgments impugned. On going through the same, it is seen that the plaintiff has established beyond all reasonable doubt his possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property pursuant to Sale Deed, Ex. P-1 under which he has purchased the same. It is also seen that defendants have failed to demonstrate that the suit schedule property does not belong to plaintiff and they have also failed to demonstrate that the schedule as stated in the plaint in erroneous. In that view of the matter, this Court find no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of both the Courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It is also seen based on the grounds urged, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence question of admitting this second appeal to consider the'' correctness or otherwise of the Judgments impugned does not arise. Accordingly this second appeal filed by defendants in O.S. No. 272/1998 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Channagiri, is hereby dismissed. Consequently Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below are hereby confirmed.
