These two second appeals were brought under Section 100 CPC from a common judgment and separate decree(s) passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Yadgir, whereby the dismissal of suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and for restoration of the property to the plaintiff was maintained and the decree for permanent injunction passed in favour of defendant No.1 was confirmed.

2. Defendant No.2 – Mr. Mathew, was the owner of plot No.2, in land bearing Sy.No.150/1 of Yadgir (B). He entered into an agreement of sale dated 23.07.1998 in favour of the plaintiff Mahadevappa. Sale deed of the property was executed and registered on 25.04.2000. Contending that the possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff and alleging that defendant No.1 has filed a false suit and obtained an adinterim exparteorder of temporary injunction and constructed a room in the said plot by taking possession by force, O.S.No.49/2000 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Yadgiri, to pass decree of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and restrain defendant No.1, permanently from causing obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1, to remove the illegal construction of room made in the suit property and for restoration of the property to the plaintiff.

3. Uday Kumar – the defendant No.1, purchased the said plot on 15.12.1998 from defendant No.2, under a registered sale deed and his name was mutated in the municipal records. He obtained permission on 17.03.1999 to construct the house on the suit property. He commenced the construction during March 2000 and in view of obstruction caused for peaceful construction by Mahadevappa – the plaintiff, a suit was instituted in the Vacation Court at Gulbarga and an adinterim order of temporary injunction was passed. On the reopening of the Courts, the suit was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Yadgiri and registered as O.S.No.53/2000. In the said suit, decree of permanent injunction was sought against Mahadevappa i.e., the plaintiff in O.S.No.49/2000.

4. The defendant(s) in the respective suits, filed written statement(s) and contested the cases. With reference to the pleadings of the parties, following issues were raised in O.S.No.49/2000:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that, he has purchased the suit property bearing Plot No.2 measuring 9X12 meter (30’X40’) equal in land Sy.No.150/1 of Yadgir (B) under registered saledeed document bearing No.177/2000-01 dated 25-4-2000 since then the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the said property?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that, the defendant has no right title and interest over the suit property and denied the title of the plaintiff with the help of the police try to dispossess the plaintiff form the suit property and also trying to construct a house over the property of the plaintiff and cause interference by the defendants?

3. Whether defendant proves that he has purchased the suit property from the defendant No.2 under registered saledeed document No.1398/98-99 dated 12-12-1998 since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment over the suit property with permission from the Municipality defendant try to construct a house over the suit property?

4. Whether defendants prove that court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction as sought for?

6. What decree or order?

5. In O.S.No.53/2000, the following issues were raised:

1. Whether plaintiff prove that he is the owner and Possessor of open plot bearing plot No.2 measuring 9M x 12M = 108 Sq.Mtrs. in land sy.No.150/1, of Yadgiri (B), tq; Yadgiri, as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that interference by the defendant?

3. What decree or order?

6. Since both suits pertained to one and the same property and the parties being common, by considering an application filed, were clubbed and common