JUDGMENT :

Learned counsel for appellants present. Counsel for respondent absent. Matter is of the year 2007 in terms of the appeal and of the year 2005 in terms of regular appeal and of the year 2001 in terms of original suit. There are no grounds to grant adjournment because of the absence of respondent’s counsel.

2. Appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 11.09.2007 passed in R.A.No.179/2005 wherein one S.N.Krishnappa, S/o late Narayanappa filed suit in O.S.No.195/2001 that came to be decreed and being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree defendant-S.Ramesh preferred regular appeal No.179/2005 that came to be partly allowed and Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge was modified by rejecting the relief of declaration and the relief of permanent injunction was confirmed. Operative portion of the order passed in R.A.No.179/2005 is as under:

“The appeal filed by the appellant/defendant is allowed in part with cost.

The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.No.195/2001 dated 07.04.2005 with respect to the declaration of plaintiff’s title to the suit schedule property is set aside. The prayer of the plaintiff for the relief of declaration is rejected.

The Judgment and decree passed by the trial court for the relief of permanent injunction is confirmed.

The defendant his agents and his supporters etc are permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.”

3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping parties hereinafter shall be referred in accordance with the rankings before the trial court.

4. This appeal is preferred by plaintiff against dismissal of the suit in respect of declaration of title. The defendant has not preferred any appeal.

5. The substance of the case is that plaintiff claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and when the father of plaintiff was alive he was in unauthorized possession and on 20.03.1977 Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk issued notice to the father of the plaintiff late Narayanappa in No.C.R.789/1976-77 directing him to give statement regarding unauthorized cultivation of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed an application before Tahsildar, Kolar and sought for regularization of his possession by granting the land to him. The Land Grant Committee recommended for grant of the schedule property to the plaintiff and it was granted to him in LND RUO 85/97-98 dated 06.01.97. Saguvali Chit was issued by Tahsildar on 06.02.98. Thus, plaintiff satisfied all the features of absolute ownership and possession over the schedule property and has been cultivating the same. In the beginning suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction and valuation slip was filed accordingly. Later by virtue of denial of title by the defendant suit was amended to include declaration of plaintiff’s title over the schedule property.

6. The defendant on appearance denied plaintiff’s claim and also filed the additional written statement by contending that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title is not maintainable in law as the plaintiff is not the owner in possession. It is further stated that the land bearing Sy.No.11 to an extent of 2 acres bounded on East by Cheeyandahalli Village limits, West by land of Doddakempanna now Muniswamappa, North by land of Chikkakempanna and South by land of Muniswamappa. The schedule property was granted to the defendant’s father long back in the year 1989. The grant certificate was issued to defendant’s father on 30.09.89 and defendant is carrying on cultivation over the schedule property and is in actual possession of the same. Thus, in sum and substance both the plaintiff and defendant claim that the schedule property was allotted to them. The suit schedule property as described in the decree is as under:

Land situated at Shap