A claimant must establish exclusive settled possession and document rights to land for relief against interference; admissions impacting access rights must be substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2018, in R.A.No.4/2016, passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady D.K (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’) and confirm the judgement and decree dated 26.09.2015, in O.S.102/2011, passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, at Belthangady, D.K (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and respondent before the first appellate Court and the respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court and appellant before the first appellate Court.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.102/2011 against the defendant on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, at Belthangady, D.K. for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men, partisan heirs, legal representatives or any other person claiming right under the defendant from interfering with the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property.

5. The plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction contending that he purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.2009 and has been in lawful possession thereof. It is further averred that the plaint ‘B’ schedule property bearing Sy.No.128/1 is Government waste land adjacent to the ‘A’ schedule property, classified as Kadim Warg land, forming the direct Kumki to his property and that he has been in possession of the same. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant, residing on the eastern side of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property without any legal right, is asserting ownership over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and attempting to take possession of both ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

6. Per Contra, the defendant, by way of written statement and counterclaim, contended that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property originally belonged to her family and was divided in a family partition. It is further asserted that one Gopu Poojary, who had taken the plaint ‘A’ schedule property on lease, was conferred occupancy rights by virtue of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The defendant claims that the ‘A’ schedule property enjoys Kumki privileges over the Government land situated on the eastern side, while the Government land on the western side remained in her father’s possession and she is now in possession of the ‘B’ schedule property. She further contends that she was allotted the ‘X’ schedule written statement property and that access to the same exists through a roadway and pathway described as ‘Y’ schedule in her written statement, which passes alongside the ‘B’ schedule property and through the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. On these grounds, the defendant sought dismissal of the suit and a decree on her counterclaim restraining the plaintiff from obstructing or closing the said ‘Y’ schedule roadway and pathway and from interfering with her peaceful possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues for consideration:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendant?

(iii) Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of written statement schedule “X” Schedule property?

(iv) Whether the defendant proves the existence and enjoyment of “Y” schedule roadwa