The appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove ownership or illegal encroachment, affirming the necessity for clear evidence in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed in R.A.No.15/2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction and for handing over vacant possession of the suit property by removing the hut, that is illegally created on the schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is ancestral property, and the same was acquired by her through her father, Puttappagowda, who had no male issues, and she has been in possession of the suit property. One Gutyamma was the wife of defendant No.1, and her father’s name was Badegondra Sainya. The said Badegondra Sanya has four daughters and no sons. They are defendant No.2 i.e., Bammi, Bangaramma, the mother of defendant No.3, defendant No.4- Kannamma and defendant No.1’s wife, Gutyamma. Gutyamma passed away, and defendant No.5 is her son, who he is her successor. After the demise of Gutyamma, Defendant No.1 married a second wife. Defendant No.3’s mother, Bangaramma, died, and defendant No.3 is her successor. After the demise of Badegondra Sanya, defendants, Nos.2 to 5, became the successors and the joint owners of the estate of their father. The property bearing Assessment No.16 situated at Khaneshumari No.1 of Amblikoppa village, belongs to the said Badegondra Sanya for which the Mandal Panchayat had entered the name of Badegondra Sanya in its khata. The suit schedule property bearing khaneshumari No.13, which measures approximately 1 acre and 24 guntas, belongs to the plaintiff as it is an ancestral property. Both these properties are distinct, and are located in different places.

3.1. During May 1994, the defendants illegally entered the eastern portion of the schedule property and put up a thatched hut measuring 17 X 19 ft. Hence, a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff to demolish the illegal construction of the hut. To overcome the effect of police actions, defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.229/1994 , by incorrectly showing the suit schedule property as Assessment No.16, by filing a false affidavit to that effect, and had obtained an exparte temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff herein, filed a written statement in the said suit. The suit was dismissed on 24.08.1996. After the disposal of the said suit, the defendants, in spite of repeated requests did not turn ups and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property by removing the hut. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file this instant suit.

Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.2. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit property, and the area of the property measures 1 acre 24 guntas. The name of defendant No.1 appears in the demand register, and he has paid the revenue for the property. The suit schedule property consists of a residential house and a barn belonging to defendant No.1. The remaining portion is used for growing krushi crops, and pineapple crops. To the east of the said property Erappa’s land is situated, to the west kallappa’s backward, to the north: Parasappa’s backyard, to the south is Khaneshmari No.13 property. The plaintiff harassed defendant No.1 in 1994, regarding the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.229/1994 , and injunction was granted against the plaintiff’s sister. Defendant No.1 withdrew the said suit on an understanding that the plaintiff would not disturb defendant No.1. The plaintiff was aware of the said facts, and filed a false suit to gain illegal benefit.

3.3. It is contended