JUDGMENT :

1. RSA Nos.3041/2006 and 3042/2006 are filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2006 passed in R.A.Nos.39 and 35 of 2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’).

2. The said R.A.Nos.39 and 35 of 2006 were filed by the respondents herein against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gangavathi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) by which the suit in O.S.No.117/2004 filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed and suit in O.S.No.130/2004 filed by the respondents herein was dismissed. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.117/2004 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.130/2004 filed by the respondents herein.

3. Brief facts of the case are that; the suit in O.S.No.117/2004 filed by the appellant/plaintiff herein against the respondents for relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein or their agents, their servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit schedule property including Northern compound wall, which is described as under:

SCHEDULE:

4. The suit in O.S.No.130/2004 is filed by the respondents herein against the appellant/plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant/plaintiff from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property described in the said suit as under:

SCHEDULE:

5. Since the parties are same, subject matter of the suits and the issues involved therein are common, the trial Court clubbed both the suits and recorded common evidence and disposed of the suits by its common judgment and decree. Therefore, for the purpose of convenience, the appellants who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.117/2004 and who are the defendants in O.S.No.130/2004 are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents who are the defendants in O.S.No.117/2004 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.130/2004 are referred to as the defendants in the present appeals.

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that; originally the land bearing Sy.No.152/A was owned and possessed by one Smt.Renukavva wife of Urukundappa who in terms of deed of sale dated 08.01.1962 sold the same in favour of K.Veeranna and D.Krishnamraj. The said two persons equally divided the said property in which Southern half portion was allotted to K.Veeranna. K.Veeranna started rice mill business on his portion of land on a partnership consisting of himself and four other persons including the plaintiff under the name and style of M/s.Vijaya Laxmi Rice Mill on 12.12.1966. That the said partnership firm was reconstituted on 31.03.1977, in which one of the partners by name N.Ayyappa retired from the firm and the remaining partners continued. On 07.07.1978, the partnership firm was dissolved in terms of which, except the plaintiff herein, all other partners retired from the firm and the plaintiff remained and continued to conduct the business of the firm as proprietor thereof. Thus, the plainti