The court reinforced the necessity for plaintiffs to substantiate property claims with sufficient evidence, particularly in disputes involving Inam lands.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J. 

1. This appeal is preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2016 in R.A. No. 40/2015 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 passed in O.S. No. 9/2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Tumakuru.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property was a Jodi Inam land belonging to one Sri. Narasimha Bhatta of Hullenahalli village as Jodidar. The Said Jodidar had leased the schedule property in favour of one Sri. Kenchaiah – paternal grandfather of plaintiff during the year 1897. After the death of the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff - Sri. Thimmegowda, grandfather of the plaintiff, was cultivating the suit schedule property as Kadim tenant and after his death, father of plaintiff – Thimmaiah was cultivating the suit schedule property. It is also stated that, in the meantime, Mysore Village Abolition Act, 1954 came into force and all Inam lands including the jodi inam lands were vested with the Government. As such father of the plaintiff - Sri. Thimmaiah made an application to the Government seeking grant occupancy right in respect of subject land alleging that the land in question has been purchased from one Sri. G.K. Ramanna son of Sri. Krishnappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 01.10.1956. It is also stated in the plaint that, the then Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bengaluru, had ordered to register occupancy right in favour of the father of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is claiming right over the property in question based on the grant made by the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner under Inam Abolition, Bengaluru. Accordingly, plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 9/2003 seeking relief of declaration of title with consequential relief of injunction against the defendants.

4. After service of notice, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had entered appearance through learned Government Pleader. Defendant No. 8 appeared in person. Defendant No.1 had filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and had taken a specific contention that, the land bearing survey No. 27 of Hullenahalli village measuring 3 acres 36 guntas was mutated in the name of father of defendant No. 8 – Sri. Ramanna son of Sri. Krishnappa as per the index of lands and also it is stated that, since land in question had been purchased on 07.08.2001 for the purpose of formation and distribution of sites under the Ashraya scheme and the same had been transferred to Taluka Panchayath and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings on record, trial court framed the issues. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff had examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The defendants have examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed R.A. No. 40/2015 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 13.07.2016, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2015 in O.S.No.9/2003. Feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

6. Heard Sri. S.V. Prakash, learn