JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

2. This regular second appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of C.P.C. praying this Court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur in R.A.No.12/2011 dtd. 5/6/2017 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC at Maddur in O.S.No.4/2008 dtd. 24/2/2011.

3. The parties are referred to in the original ranking before the Trial Court as defendants and plaintiff, in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while filing the suit for permanent injunction is that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property which originally belongs to her father Hosabore Hegde and the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff demised leaving behind the plaintiff, who is the daughter and his only son Revanna. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, the brother of the plaintiff Revanna being a sole male member of the family inherited the landed property to an extent of 1 acre, 8 guntas in suit Survey No.1017/1. All the revenue entries were mutated in his name. In fact, the brother of the plaintiff died intestate in an unmarried status. During his life time, he sold 8 guntas of land in the suit survey number to one K. Thimmaiah and also 6 guntas of land in favour of the first defendant herein. The plaintiff being his own legal representative, has succeeded to his estate in respect of the remaining land. Thus, she became absolute owner and all the revenue entries were mutated in her name with respect to suit schedule property and she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and cultivating the same by raising sugarcane and mulberry and rearing silk worms. There are 15 coconut trees, 8 baniyan trees, 8 neem trees, 2 mango trees and other trees in the suit schedule property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants, without having any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property, they have always causing unnecessary harassment to the enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. That on 30/12/2007, the defendants colluded together and came near the plaintiff's suit schedule property along with their henchmen and made unsuccessful and unlawful attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the same has been resisted by the plaintiff. The defendants openly proclaimed that they will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

6. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants entered appearance through their counsels and filed written statement and contended that Old Sy.No.864/1 measured and mapped and pacca phoded and new survey number assigned as 1017/1. Out of 1.8 acres, about 10 guntas of land has been utilized for the purpose of channel. After formation of the channel, the remaining 38 guntas became two pieces because the channel is formed in the middle of 1.8 guntas. Out of 38 guntas, 30 guntas lies towards northern side and 8 guntas lies towards southern side and the father of the plaintiff had sold northern portion of entire land in old Sy.No.864/1 in favour of the father of the second defendant and put his father in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that, at the time of selling the land, though the extent was mentioned as 24 guntas, put the boundary to the entire land and the entire land was transferred and his father was put in possession of the entire land as on the date of sale. Accordingly, the father of the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of entire northern portion till hi