Possession claims must be supported by legal documentation, and the court will uphold a modified claim that aligns with prior legal instruments, dismissing irrelevant disputes.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. Present appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment passed in RA No.11/2019 in reversing the judgment passed in O.S.No.163/2017.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. A suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff by contending that he is the owner in possession of the immovable property which is described as under and hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property:

Land bearing Sy.No.5/2 measuring 4 acres 14 guntas, assessed at Rs.8.52 paisa situated at Kongathimmanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk is bounded as follows:

East by – Land of defendant

West by – Own land

North by – Sy.No.5/3 and 5/4

South by – Land of Krishnappa and Narayanappa.

3.2. Plaintiff further contended that he purchased the suit property from Sri.Venkatanarayanappa through registered sale deed dated 24.08.1967 and from that date onwards, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the extent of 3 acres 17 guntas. But when he was put into possession of the land based on the boundaries, the land measured 4 acres 14 guntas and plaintiff was in possession of 4 acre 14 guntas. Suit property was part of the land bearing Sy.No.5 totally measuring 23 acres 34 guntas.

3.3. The land was further phoded in the year 1968 and Sy.No.5 was divided to five hissa agreeing for the joint survey and boundaries were fixed. At that juncture, father of the defendant was also party to the survey proceedings and he did not object for the survey being conducted and boundaries being fixed and by affixing his signature on the survey sketch.

4. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2012, defendant filed an appeal before the Technical Assistant of Deputy Commissioner and DDLR, Chikkaballapur challenging the hissa and survey which took place in the year 1968.

5. In the said appeal, defendant contended that father of the defendant had purchased 3 acres in the land bearing Sy.No.5 and on 30.01.2014, Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and DDLR, directed the ADLR to resurvey the land bearing Sy.No.5/1 and 5/2.

6. It is also contended by the plaintiff that in the meantime, defendant in active collusion with the revenue authorities, got mutated his name in respect of 34 guntas of the land bearing Sy.No.5/2 without any legal basis.

7. Based on the said revenue entries, he started interfering with the suit and therefore, suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff.

8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and denied all the material allegations.

9. He also contended that he is in possession being the owner of the land in Sy.No.5 measuring 3 acres and sought for dismissal of the suit.

10. Suit on contest came to be dismissed.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.11/2019.

12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

13. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant has filed the present appeal on following grounds and substantial questions of law are raised which reads as under:

GROUNDS

- The judgment and decree passed by the Appellate court is illegal, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Appellate Judge has failed to apply mind to the contentions raised in the written statement of Defendant & documentary evidence available on record. Having noticed the extent mentioned in the sale deed dated 24.08.1967 has erred allowing the appeal.