M. B. VISHWANATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the defendants. The respondent is the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 21/1982 before the Munsiff, Savanur, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing TPC No. 588 situated in W. No. III of Bankapur village.

( 4 ) THE trial Court granted the decree for permanent injunction, but dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration.

( 5 ) THE defendants appealed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in R. A. No. 11/1989 before the Civil Judge, Haveri. The plaintiff filed cross appeal.

( 6 ) THE appellate Court by its common judgment dated 20-12-1990 dismissed the defendants' appeal and allowed the plaintiff's cross appeal. In other words, the appellate Court confirmed the decree for permanent injunction passed by the trial Court and granted the decree for declaration also.

( 7 ) THE present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the suit property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and others and at a family partition, it fell to the share of the plaintiff's elder uncle's son Veerappa Panchappanavar. Mutation was entered after partition in the name of said Veerappa Panchappanavar and he was in possession since partition.

( 9 ) SAID Veerappa Panchappanavar surrendered the suit property in favour of the plaintiff along with another property bearing T. P. C. No. 359/b and he (Veerappa Panchappanavar) gave a Varadi as per Ex. P-1 dated 4-3-78 to the Town Panchayath. The Town Panchayath Committee passed a resolution and mutated and entered the name of the plaintiff in the panchayath records.

( 10 ) THE case of the defendants is that they have purchased the suit property under registered sale deed dated 27-3-1958 (Ex. D-4) from three persons - Parvatavva, Rudrappa and Guru-shanthappa. The measurements of the suit property given in the plaint are admitted by the defendants. It is the case of the defendants that since Ex. D-4 dated 27-3-1958 they have been in continuous and actual physical possession of the suit property. Alternatively, the defendants have claimed adverse possession.

( 11 ) AS I have already stated, the trial Court granted the decree for injunction only. The appellate Court allowed the cross appeal and granted the decree for permanent injunction as also declaration. The defendants have appealed to this Court.

( 12 ) AT the time of admission this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for determination by this Court :"whether the I Appellate Court could have allowed cross-objections of the respondent herein declaring his title to the suit property depending only on the entries in the khata register and ignoring the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant ?"

( 13 ) IT looks that at the pleadings stage there was some dispute regarding the identity of the property. It is clear from the judgments of the Courts below and other material on record and also the arguments advanced in this Court, there is no longer any dispute regarding the identity of the property.

( 14 ) SO far as plaintiff's possession of the suit property is concerned, both the Courts below, on the basis of the records and the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property and accordingly they granted decree for permanent injunction.

( 15 ) WE are concerned only with regard to the decree for declaration granted by the first appellate Court by allowing the cross appeal of the plaintiff.

( 16 ) THE plaintiff has produced the applica- tion (Varadi-Ex. P-1) given by Veerappa Panchappanavar to the Panchayath surrendering the property in favour of the plaintiff, the order of the Panchayath to mutate the name in favour of the plaintiff (Ex. P-2), Panchayath extracts of the suit property (Exs. P-3 to P-6), tax receipts (Exs. P-7 to P-13) and o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document