The plaintiff must prove ownership outside any acquired land, and shifting the burden to the defendant is legally erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri. P.D. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Hareesh Kumar N.T., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendant is the appellant in the second appeal challenging the validity of the decree of permanent injunction passed in O.S.No.284/of 2010 in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'):

SCHEDULE

All that piece and parcel of Site No.3, having Khanushmari No.509/3, situated at Arishinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the -

East by : Site No.2 West by : 25 Feet Road North by : Road South by : Site No.4.

All that piece and parcel of Site No.4, having Khanushmari No.509/4, situated at Arishinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the East by :Site Nos.2 & 6 West by :25 Feet Road North by : Site No.3 North by South by : Site No.5.

3. The judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court was questioned by the appellant before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.44/2018.

4. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgement dated 30.06.2022 dismissed the appeal and whereby decree of permanent injunction passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed.

5. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present appeal.

6. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

7. In the schedule of the plaint, the plaintiff has described the two sites as follows:-

SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of Site No.3, having Khanushmari No.509/3, situated at Arishinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the -

East by : Site No.2

West by : 25 Feet Road

North by : Road

South by : Site No.4.

All that piece and parcel of Site No.4, having Khanushmari No.509/4, situated at Arishinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the East by :Site Nos.2 & 6 West by :25 Feet Road North by : Site No.3 North by South by : Site No.5.

8. A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing No.3 having Khaneshumari No.509/3 situated at Arasinakunte Grama Panchayat, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk.

8. Suit property is a portion of the converted land in Surrey No.20/2C, Old Sy.No.20/2 measuring 0-10 guntas situated at Arasinakunte Village, which was converted for non agricultural purpose as per the Order dated 19.03.1992.

9. After the conversion of the land, property was transferred to Arasinakunte Village and was allotted Khaneshumari No.509. Property was divided into seven individual sites bearing Nos.509/1 to 509/7. Out of the aforesaid sites, plaintiff purchased two sites bearing Khaneshumari Nos.509/3 and 509/4. Plaintiff thereafter paid taxes and also obtained sanction to construct a commercial building. Plaintiff paid the licence fee to the Gram Panchayat.

10. Defendant who has no matter of right, title or interest over the suit property started obstructing the construction of the building which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction.

11. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contending that plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and 0-15 gutnas of land in Sy.No.20/2C and other adjoining land of Arasinakunte Village was acquired by the State of Karnataka for public purpose under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and took possession and thereafter transferred the same to Commercial Tax Department 18.02.1994.

12. It is further contended that