JUDGMENT :

This regular second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.06.2006 passed in Regular Appeal No.24/2001 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at T.Narasipura, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the lower appellate Court thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1994 passed in O.S.No.4/1992 by the Trial Court which had dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule immovable property.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rankings in the trial Court.

3. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit. Respondent was the sole defendant in the suit. Incidentally, the defendant is none other than the sister of the plaintiffs.

4. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant were children of one late Madanaika @ Kivada. It was contended that the said Madanaika @ Kivada gifted immovable property denoted in the annexed sketch as ‘ABCD’ measuring north to south 60’ and 30’ east to west and a house situated therein in favour of the defendant under registered gift deed dated 17.05.1972. It was further contended that as per the sketch, the property delineated by the letters ‘ABCDFG’ measuring north to south 100’ and east to west 60’ was belonging to said Madanaika. Out of the said total extent of property, a portion marked as ‘ABCD’ measuring 60’ x 30’ was gifted to the defendant by the said Madanaika under the aforesaid gift deed dated 17.05.1972. It was also contended that the remaining portion of the property measuring 30’ x 40’ delineated as ‘DCBGHE’ in the sketch came to be in possession of the plaintiffs who became the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. It was also contended that the defendant did not have any manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule vacant site. However, pursuant to a licence said to have been issued in her favour by the Panchayath, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment and tried to put up construction. Though the Panchayath issued a notice to the defendant calling upon her not to put up construction, the defendant continued with her illegal and highhanded acts and as such, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was also contended that the aforesaid licence granted in favour of the defendant was cancelled by the Panchayath on 25.07.1983.

6. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement thereby disputing/denying the plaint averments. It was contended by her that under the gift deed dated 17.05.1972, her father Madanaika not only gifted the vacant site measuring 30’ east to west and 60’ north to south consisting of four ankanas house but also the entire vacant site lying towards southern side upto the site of Ananthapadmanabhaiah. It was further contended that the said site belonging to Ananthapadmanabhaiah was sold to Nagasundara Murthy, who in turn sold it to G.Nataraj. Under these circumstances, it is contended that the sketch produced by the plaintiff is a false one. It was contended that the plaintiffs do not have any manner of right, title interest or possession over the suit schedule property since the father of the defendant did not retain any site towards the southern side up to the property of Ananthapadmanabhaiah since he had gifted the entire property in favour of the defendant under the gift deed dated 17.05.1972. It was further contended that the defendant had obtained a valid licence to put up construction and that she had obtained licence in the year 1983 which was not cancelled but she could not put up construction at that point in time and subsequently, she had put up construction over the property. The defendant further denied the right, title interest or possession of the plaintiffs ov