The approved layout plan Ex.P-17 is crucial in determining the existence of the disputed sites and establishing ownership and possession rights.

JUDGMENT :

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant who is questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below in granting injunction and thereby restraining the defendant herein from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The subject matter of the suit is site No.40 situated at Ward No.20, Tumakuru Town measuring 30x40 feet. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that suit site is part of an approved layout allotted to one Smt. Narasahanumakka W/o late Chikkarangaiah under resolution dated 25.01.1979. The plaintiff further pleaded that Narasahanumakka who was the absolute owner of suit site sold the same in favour of her daughter Rangamma W/o Gangahanumaiah. The said Rangamma who acquired right and title under registered sale deed gifted the property to the present plaintiff who is none other than the daughter of the said Rangamma. The plaintiff contended that the defendant has purchased site No.42 which is situated towards Eastern side of the suit schedule property. The present suit for injunction is filed alleging that defendant tried to encroach by digging the foundation on the Eastern side of the suit schedule property by attempting to encroach over the suit schedule property.

4. The defendant, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant in her written statement however pleaded her ignorance in regard to allotment of site No.40 in favour of Narasahanumakka. However, defendant claimed that she is the absolute owner of site No.42 and further contended that she has constructed house by obtaining license from the competent authority. The defendant claimed that the width of the road is increased by 20 feet and therefore, CMC, Tumakuru has virtually utilized site Nos.40 and 41 and has issued a modified plan and therefore, seriously disputed the existence of site Nos.40 and 41.

5. The plaintiff to substantiate her claim let in evidence by examining three witnesses and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-20. While defendant examined herself as DW.1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-8.

6. The Trial Court having referred to the clinching evidence vide Exs.P-2 to P-14 found that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her lawful possession over the suit site bearing No.40. The Trial Court while taking note of the approved layout plan in Sy.No.302/1 vide Ex.P-17 has come to conclusion that situation of plot Nos.40, 41 and 42 are clearly depicted in the approved layout and therefore, the contention of defendant that site Nos.40 and 41 are not in existence was out-rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court while considering the rebuttal evidence however declined to entertain the defence set up by the defendant that a portion measuring 20 feet in site No.40 was utilized for the purpose of widening road. Referring to the title documents and also possession certificate, Trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving her lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit and interference having been proved, proceeded to dismiss the suit.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.

8. The Appellate Court being the final fact finding authority has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court has also meticulously examined the approved layout plan as per Ex.P-17 coupled with Ex.D-8 sketch prepared by one H. Hanumaiah claiming to be an official of Tumakuru Urban Development Authority. Relying on endorsement vide Ex.P-19, Appellate Court has come to conclusion that the alleged sketch furnished by the defendant vide Ex.D-8 is not approved by the authority. The Appellate Court was also of the view that