The High Court confirmed that valid government grants prevail over disputed possession claims, emphasizing that reliance on erroneous previous reports constituted a reversible error.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 21.12.2005 passed in R.A.No.29/2004 on the file of District Judge, Fast Track Court II, Uttara Kannada, Karwar (First Appellate Court), by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the defendant/respondent had set aside the judgement and decree dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ankola (Trial Court) in O.S.No.99/1991.

2. The above suit in O.S.No.99/1991 is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking judgment and decree declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the land bearing Block No.11B measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Marugadde village, Ankola Taluk (schedule property) and for further relief of partition of the said area by metes and bounds and in the alternative for a direction for recovery of possession to an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas of land if in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the said extent is in possession of defendant through the process of Court and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant are the Dayadis and original residents of Samguni-Mallani village. That in the year 1960, suit land measuring 4 acres 20 guntas out of 8 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.11 of Marugadde village was granted to the plaintiff. Similarly, an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in the said survey number was granted to the defendant by the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta. Ever since then, the plaintiff and the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions of lands by constructing residential houses and cowsheds thereon. That in the year 1982, plaintiff had applied for survey and measurement of the suit land to demarcate the boundaries. Accordingly, the Additional Director of Land Records, Kumta had surveyed the suit land of plaintiff and defendant in their presence and gave the report. In spite of the same, the defendant without having any right, title and interest over the suit land belonging to the plaintiff, caused interference constraining the plaintiff to file a suit in O.S.No.18/1985 for relief of permanent injunction. A Court Commissioner was appointed in the said suit to measure the land as per the records available with the parties. The Court Commissioner surveyed the land on 27.11.1990 and submitted his report in collusion with the defendant. The said Commissioner without following the directions of the Court and without properly surveying the land of the plaintiff filed a report showing an area of 4 acre 30 guntas of land being in possession of defendant while an area measuring 3 acre 12 guntas being in possession of the plaintiff. Based on the said report, the defendant again interfered and attempted to encroach upon the suit land. Since there were formal defects in the said suit, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit in O.S.No.18/1985 with liberty to institute a fresh suit. Accordingly, the present suit seeking substantial relief is filed.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the plaintiff having withdrawn the earlier suit, filed the present suit only to harass the defendant and suit is therefore liable to be dismissed on the principle of res-judicata. It is admitted that the defendant was granted an extent of 3 acre 28 guntas land in Block No.11 on 13.04.1962 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta. Based on