The Plaintiff must prove possession of the property as of the filing date, and the cancellation of the DKT patta was valid due to non-compliance with residency and cultivation requirements.

JUDGMENT :

(T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.)

1. This Second Appeal was filed by the Appellants/Respondents 1, 7 to 9/Plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 07.12.1999 passed in A.S.No.78 of 1990 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur (for short, 'the First Appellate Court') reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 01.06.1988 passed in O.S.No.38 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif Magistrate, Nagari (for short ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The 1^st Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.38 of 1987 for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men and servants or nominees from causing any disturbance to the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. 1^st Respondent / Appellant is the 6^th Defendant in the said suit. Respondents 2 to 6 are Defendants 1 to 5, who remained ex parte in the suit proceedings.

3. It is prudent to refer to the parties as they are initially presented in the suit O.S.No.38 of 1987 to minimize any potential confusion and to enhance the understanding of the case.

4. The factual matrix essential for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties can be outlined as follows:

The Plaintiff, a resident of Ekambarakuppam village, is the absolute owner of the schedule-mentioned property, which he has peacefully and continuously possessed for over twenty years, cultivating dry crops and paying land revenue. On 03.01.1962, the Plaintiff was granted a DKT patta for land S.No.170/1, to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents in Netham Kandiga, Nagari Taluk, by the Puttur Tahsildar. The patta remains valid, as no cancellation proceedings have occurred. The Plaintiff has also been issued a Ryot Pass Book and Kist receipts, affirming his rights. Despite this, the Defendants, lacking any legal claim or right to the land, have recently disrupted the Plaintiff’s possession. The Defendants, acting with malice, have threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff, allegedly at the request of the Tahsildar, Nagari. The Plaintiff issued a Section 80 notice on 05.05.1983, acknowledged by the 6^th Defendant and the Tahsildar, but no reply was received. The Defendants are causing law and order issues, hindering the Plaintiff's enjoyment of the property. Given the urgency of sowing crops, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent further interference and has requested permission to sue the Defendants personally and as representatives of Nathamkandriga H. Wada.

5. In the written statement, the 6^th Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is a non-agriculturist residing in Tiruttani, not in Ekambarakuppam, and earns a livelihood as a cloth merchant. Defendant claimed that Plaintiff never possessed or cultivated the suit land, which was classified as waste dry land before the grant of D.K.T. Patta. The patta was later cancelled for public necessity after due notice, and the land was reallocated for house sites for 55 harijan families in 1976. The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff was ever in possession of the land and maintains that the Government did not dispossess him. 6th Defendant also asserted that Plaintiff misrepresented his status as a local agriculturist to obtain the patta, which was later cancelled due to the Plaintiff being a non-agriculturist. Defendant further claimed that the Plaintiff violated the Derkasth Rules and asserts that the suit land was resumed by the government. The Plaintiff is not entitled to permanent or temporary injunctions, as the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. There is no cause of action, no balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff and the suit is not maintainable.

6. Based on the above pleadings in O.S.No.447 of 2001, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit land on the date of suit?

2) Whether the DKT patta given to the Plaintiff from the suit land was cancelled later by the Gover