The admission of a party in a previous suit can be crucial in determining possession rights, and the admitted fact need not be proved again.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 30/11/2021 passed in R.A.No.221/2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.144 measuring 0.04 guntas situated at Kasaba hobli, Mysuru taluk, Mysuru. The said land was granted to the plaintiff by Bhoo Nyaya Mandali in K.L.R.M.4253-4280/79-80. In the said land, the plaintiff constructed five residential houses and one shop. The plaintiff is also residing in one portion of the house. The shop was given on a rent to one Boregowda. The defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff sold his entire properties and thereafter requested the plaintiff to give permission to stay in the suit schedule property hence, the defendant is residing in the said premises since nine years. It is also the case of the plaintiff that without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, in order to harass the plaintiff, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.906/2005 in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be dismissed and against the said dismissal order, the defendant preferred an appeal and the said appeal also came to be dismissed on 17/1/2012. Now, the sons of the plaintiff require the suit schedule property to reside therein. Hence, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate and handover the suit schedule property and also issued legal notice on 16/4/2012 calling upon the defendant to vacate and handover the suit schedule property and the said notice was served on the defendant but he neither complied nor replied to the notice. Hence, without any other alternative, the suit was filed.

4. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared before the Court and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant contend that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which was granted to him by the Land Tribunal in K.L.R.M.4262/79 dtd. 27/9/1980 and he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant also constructed a house in the suit schedule property. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has shown wrong boundaries to the suit schedule property.

5. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, framed the issues and given the opportunity to the respective parties to lead their evidence and after considering the evidences of the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before it, decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directed the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within three months and also directed the defendant to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.1, 000.00 p.m. from the date of the suit till vacating the suit schedule property.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record formulated the points and with regard to the granting of relief of declaration, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that title has not been proved however while answering point No.2, concurrent with the finding of the Trial Court that the defendant is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and taken note of the admission given by the defendant in the suit filed by him earlier wherein he categorically admitted that he is in permissive possession. Hence, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appell