The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of joint ownership and possession rights in a Hindu Joint Family property, along with the implications of the Land Acquisition Act on entitlement to compensation and possession.

JUDGMENT

1. Sri K.V. Shanmukhaiah - the 1st respondent filed a suit, initially, seeking for declaration and permanent injunction. Subsequently, by way of an amendment he also sought for possession in respect of 'B' schedule property.

2. It was his case that one Voggodaiah had a son called Mallaiah and Mallaiah had three sons, namely, Rangaiah, Sannaiah and Voggaiah, who constituted a Hindu Joint Family, which possessed several properties including the suit property. It was stated that khatha in respect of suit property stood in the name of Mallaiah.

3. It was also stated that the second son of Mallaiah i.e. Sannaiah had died issueless and his wife had also passed away and as a consequence on the death of Mallaiah his remaining two sons i.e. Voggaiah and Rangaiah had divided their joint family properties several decades ago. It was also stated that the suit property along with other properties had fallen to the share of Voggaiah and he was in possession of the same.

4. It was stated that Voggaiah had four sons, namely, K.V. Shanmukhaiah (the plaintiff), Mallikarjunaiah, Mahalingaiah and Virupakshaiah who together constituted Hindu Joint Family. It was stated that the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of his father Voggaiah and after Voggaiah's death in the year 1997, the suit property devolved to the plaintiff and his three remaining brothers who were in joint possession.

5. It was stated that on the basis of a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.79/1986, the 3rd defendant K.T. Mahalingaiah claimed title to the property and sought for change of entries and he had also filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was stated that the Revenue Entries were changed in favour of the 3rd defendant and he had preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner who however, dismissed the appeal. It was stated that the decree passed in O.S. No.79/1986 was of no consequence and the same did not bind the plaintiff. It was further stated that the State had acquired 1 acre 20 guntas of land out of 4 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.32/2 for the formation of Hemavathi Channel and an award was passed for an amount of Rs.85,511.00 and notice of the award had been issued to Mallaiah S/o. Voggodaiah, the grand father of the plaintiff. It was stated that the State had acquired 30 guntas of land in the suit schedule property on the southern side and there remained an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas, which was the suit schedule property. It was stated that the plaintiff had been dispossessed by the 3rd defendant during pendency of the suit and was in unauthorized possession.

6. It was also stated that on dismissal of the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, the 3rd respondent had in fact approached defendant No.2 and staked a claim to receive compensation in respect of the acquisition and since attempts would be made to claim the compensation, the plaintiff was constrained to seek for declaration and for permanent injunction.

7. The State which was arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the suit.

8. The 3rd defendant i.e. appellant contested the suit by denying all plaint averments, except the proceeding initiated in O.S. No.79/1986 and revenue proceedings. It was stated that the order of the Assistant Commissioner by which the appeal of the plaintiff challenging the mutation in favour of the 3rd defendant had became final and therefore it was not open to the plaintiff to seek for declaration. Though he admitted that neither the plaintiff nor his father were parties in O.S. No.79/1986 he stated that they were not necessary parties as they had no title. He denied the assertion of the plaintiff that land that to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas had been acquired and that an award has been passed in the name of Mallaiah. It was stated that the Special Land Acquisition Officer could have possibly passed an award without holding proper enquiry and therefore, that did not create any interest in the plaintiff. He also stated that he had sought for