The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of property and entitlement to relief are determined based on the evidence of ownership and possession presented by the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present regular second appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 2/7/2014 passed in R.A.No.60/2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court') dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff and confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/2007 passed in O.S.No.163/1999 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jn. Dn.) at Madhugiri (herein after referred to as the 'Trial Court') which had declared the plaintiff to be a absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property and had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of relief of permanent injunction in respect of 'B' schedule property.

2. Case of the plaintiff is:

(a) That he is the absolute owner of the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing assessment No.147/673/166 of Marithimmanahalli described as 'A' schedule property. That the said site was allotted to the plaintiff by virtue of Hakkupatra bearing No.193/88-89 dtd. 28/5/1988 by the defendant No.2-Mandala Panchayath. The plaintiff had constructed a residential house in an area of 24 feet east to west and 17 feet north to south of the 'A' schedule property in the year 1989 after obtaining licence from defendant No.2-Mandal Panchayath. The house of the plaintiff is facing towards east and he had left 13 feet space towards east as front yard in as much as on the eastern boundary of the plaintiff's property there is a road running north to south having width of about 30 feet. That the said road was being used by the public for the purpose of walking and taking carts and no one had any right to put up any permanent structure on the said portion of the property on the eastern side which is described as 'B' schedule property in the plaint.

(b) It is a further case of the plaintiff that though defendant had no manner of right over the said portion of the schedule 'B' property, had been making hectic efforts to dig and put up of construction over the same and thereby curtailing the right of the access to the plaintiff's house from the eastern side. That the plaintiff had filed complaint about this illegality to the concerned defendant No.2-Mandal Panchayath and to the police in vain. That despite there being a temporary injunction granted by the Court not to put up the construction on the schedule 'B' property, defendant had forcibly in an highhanded manner put up the construction over the schedule 'B' property which was liable to be demolished. Hence, plaintiff sought for a relief of declaration declaring him to be a absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'A' property, for a permanent injunction and mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to demolish the construction of building over the 'B' schedule property.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement;

(a) Denying the case of the plaintiff. It is further contended that under the Government Scheme number of sites were formed in the land bearing Sy.No.24 of Marithimmana village and out of those sites, site bearing No.21 measuring north to south 40 feet, east to west 30 feet was allotted to the defendant as per the Hakkupatra dtd. 31/3/1997. That ever since the date of allotment to defendant No.1, he has been in actual physical possession of the same. Khatha for the said site has also been made out in the name of the defendant and that he is paying the property tax to the Panchayath. That the defendant had applied for a loan under Indira Aawaz scheme and constructed building thereon, after the spot inspection, verification of documents and upon the recommendation of Panchayath authorities loan was sanctioned to the defendant No.1 and accordingly defendant No.1 laid foundation and constructed portion of walls thereon. That he had left 4 feet space on the western side of his property. That the site number of plaintiff is 20 and not 21 and if there was a mistake in mentioning th