Concurrent findings established that ownership rests with the plaintiff based on a valid title deed while the defendant's claims of property ownership and legality of construction were unsupported.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and vacant possession by way of mandatory injunction is that she is the wife of late Sri Huchegowda. The suit schedule property was purchased by late Sri Huchegowda from its erstwhile owner by name Sri H.R. Veeregowda for valuable sale consideration under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.1978. In pursuance to the sale transaction, the said late Sri Huchegowda was put in possession of the suit property and ever since then the plaintiff along with her husband and other property members were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even the Municipal Khatha pertaining to the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of late Sri Huchegowda and the said Sri Huchegowda has been playing taxes regularly pertaining to the suit schedule property. After the death of said Sri Huchegowda, the plaintiff, in her capacity as the legal representative of late Sri Huchegowda, got mutated the property in her name. In the meantime, the plaintiff suffered from ill-health, as such about 3 years prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff started residing with her grand-son at Davanagere for the purpose of treatment and the plaintiff could not come to Hassan for quite some time during her stay at Davanagere. But, after recovering from her ill-health when the plaintiff came to Hassan, to her utter shock, she found that the defendant No.1 and her father had put up a temporary structure over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff inquired with the defendant No.1 about the same, but the defendant No.1 claimed that the property belongs to her family and even proclaimed the relevant records are standing her name. Upon perusal of records, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the Municipal authorities had got created the records pertaining to suit schedule property in her favour by taking undue advantage of the absence of plaintiff. In fact, neither the defendant No.1 nor her father have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and the construction of the temporary shed put up by them is an attempt to knock off the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is filed seeking comprehensive relief of declaration and recovery of possession.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement. The very gist of the written statement is that claim made by the plaintiff is not correct. In fact the suit property is different from the property purchased under the sale deed, as such the suit is not maintainable. Further, it is contended that the description of the property stated in the plaint is incorrect and the plaintiff has filed a suit showing wrong boundaries just to confuse the Court and get an order in her favour. Further, it is contended that the structure put up by the defendant No.1 is not a temporary construction, in fact the same was made about 15 years prior to institution of the suit and the defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property, since 1990. Further, the said construction put up by the plaintiff is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and other concerned persons. Further, the suit property earlier belonged to Municipality, but since the defendant No.1 had made construction over the suit schedule property, her possession was recognized by the Municipality and the Khatha was made in her na