Order of Revenue Officer in mutation proceedings based on untrue evidence has no evidentiary value in civil suit.

JUDGMENT

Ashok S. Kinagi, J. - The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2019 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Haveri, in O.S. No. 429/2012 which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2020 in R.A. No. 27/2019 passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, filed this second appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and their servants to restrain them from interfering and causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property comprised in V.P.C. No. 41 consisting a house and backyard situated at Homabaradi village of Haveri taluk.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally the suit property was owned by one Basavanneppa S/o. Rudrappa Chikkanandi died long ago. During his lifetime i.e., 30 years ago, he handed over the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff along with family members occupied the same and his name was entered in VPC extract of concerned village panchayat. The plaintiff along with his family members is in actual possession and enjoyment. The defendants trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction.

4. The defendants entered their appearance and filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint averment. It is contended that mother of the defendants namely Gouravva W/o. Hanumanthappa is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and earlier VPC extract pertaining to the suit property was standing in her name but her name was deleted in the said VPC extract without giving any notice to her from the concerned panchayat. After the death of the said Gouravva i.e., mother of the defendants, the defendants gave vardi to enter their names but the panchayat officials refused to enter their name in the panchayat records. The defendants being aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal before the President Taluk Panchayat in proceedings No. wherein he ordered to enter the names of the defendants. Being aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the President of Zilla Panchayat. The President of Zilla Panchayat did not pass any order of stay. Then the plaintiff challenged the same before this Court in W.P. No. 70896/2012. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with the observation that the entries will the subject to the result of suit. It is further contended that suit properties original belongs to one Basavanneppa Rudrappa Chikkanandi who died testate leaving behind a registered Will dated 15.12.1976 bequeathing the suit property in favour of Gouravva who is the mother of defendants. Accordingly, after the death of said Basavanneppa, the suit property was mutated in the name of defendants mother. After her death, the said properties were mutated in the names of defendants. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

4) What decree or order?

6. The plaintiff to prove his case examined one Puttappa Chikkanandi who is the GPA holder of plaintiff as PW-1 and got marked 12 documents as Exs. P-1 to P-12. The defendant No. 1 got examined herself as DW-1 and got marked 5 documents as Exs. D-1 to D-5. After considering the evidence of the parties and after appreciating the material on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and also failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendants. Further held that the plaintiff is not enti