In claims for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must sufficiently prove exact boundaries of the property in dispute; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Sy.No.165/3 totally measuring 16 acres 36 guntas situated at Kattalagere Village, Basavapattana Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, originally belongs to one Bheemappa and he was the owner, kathedar in possession and enjoyment of the said land. During his lifetime, he had gifted an extent of 8 acres 18 guntas of the northern side of Sy.No.165/3 of land in favour of his daughter Smt. Hanumavva for the welfare of her children and the said gift deed is registered vide gift deed dated 02.08.1943. Since then, she became the owner of the said extent of land and remaining extent in the southern side measuring 8 acres 29 guntas was retained by the grandfather of the plaintiff. Subsequent to the death of Bheemappa, the father of the plaintiff succeeded to the said property and the revenue entries were also changed into the name of the father of the plaintiff under IH proceedings. Subsequently, after the death of the plaintiff’s father/Dodda Hanumanthappa, the revenue entries changed into the name of the plaintiff under IH proceeding vide IHC No.7/1980-81. The plaintiff is enjoying the suit property as an absolute owner, kathedar and successor in possession which is described in the plaint schedule.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that out of the land which was gifted to Hanumavva to an extent of 8 acres 18 guntas, 13 guntas was acquired for the formation of IT Road and channel 3^rd zone distributor of Malebennuru Branch Channel vide Mysuru gazette dated 30.05.1968 by the Government of Karnataka. Gurusiddappa and Kariyappa have received the compensation amount from the Special Land acquisition Officer, Shivamogga on 13.02.1969. The said extent which was acquired for the IT Road and channel was not reduced by the revenue authorities in the revenue records and the same has been continued in the RTC’s of the said survey number which was actually remains only to an extent of 8 acres 5 guntas after acquisition of 13 guntas. Subsequent to that, defendant Nos.5 to 7 had entered into the partition deed on 12.06.2001 and in the said partition in Sy.No.165/3B measuring 20 guntas was allotted to the share of Kariyappa/defendant No.5 and extent of 3 acres 35 guntas was allotted to the share of Basavarajappa and Manjunatha jointly and as per the registered partition deed, katha was accepted into their names in the revenue records.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the brother of defendant Nos.5 to 7 was also mentioned in the revenue records, 4 acres 15 guntas. Thereby, totally 8 acres 30 guntas appeared in the revenue records and thereby an extent of 25 guntas is and was not in possession with defendant Nos.5 to 7 and an alleged partition deed created by them to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.165/3B on the revenue records. The defendant No.5 made representation to defendant Nos.3 and 4 for hudbasth survey of 20 guntas appeared in Sy.No.165/3B. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 made illegal attempts to fix the hudbasth in the land of defendant Nos.5 to 7 on which they made representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division in R.A.No.364/2017-18. The said Assistant Commissioner ordered directing the Tahsildar/defend