This

matter

is

listed

for

admission

today.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

- 3 -

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 19.11.2019 passed in R.A.No.05/2019 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., at Mudigere.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the

suit schedule property and the same was granted by the

Government through Dharkasth No.9/1931-32 in the name of

Byra @ Byrappa s/o. Putta. The Khatha has changed as per

order No.24, dated 13.08.1932. After his death, the name of

his son Manja @ A.B. Manjappa was entered in RTC, but in

column No.9 it is shown as coffee kharab and A.B.Manjappa

from 1968-69. A.B. Manjappa died on 04.10.1991, after which

the plaintiff has not paid the land revenue and in 1996-97,

defendant No.6 entered the column No.9 of RTC as Sarkari

Beelu. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on

03.09.2007 and immediately he filed necessary application

before defendant No.6, but defendant No.6 did not take any

action.

Hence,

the

plaintiff

sent

an

application

dated

04.11.2012 to the Registrar of High Court of Karnataka and the

matter was referred to the High Court Legal Aid Committee.

The Committee took opinion of M/s.Desai and Associates on

- 4 -

21.12.2012 and has transferred the dispute to the TLSC,

Mudigere. The case was registered as PLC.No.03/2013. The

defendant No.6 appeared before the Committee and filed

objections, but has not agreed to change the khatha of the

schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, the

dispute was closed as not settled. Defendant No.6 without any

right, title or interest over the schedule property is trespassing

into

the

schedule

property

and

removing

the

fence.

Immediately after filing of the suit, the defendants appeared

and defendant No.6 filed the written statement contending that

on verification of revenue documents 1 acre 37 guntas of land

in Sy.No.40 was granted under Darkasth in favour of Byra S/o.

Putta and younger son Manja, the same is mentioned in

Kethuvar Register. But in the index of land, the said land is

mentioned as coffee kharab and also in RTC for the year 1968

to 1995 the land is shown as coffee kharab. However

unauthorizedly the khatha has been mutated to the name of

A.B. Manjappa S/o. Byrappa. But the said mutation entries are

not mentioned in any mutation register. The plaintiff had

submitted an application on 30.09.2007 to restore the khatha

of the said land. As per the order dated 19.08.2012, the

- 5 -

application of the plaintiff was disposed of. Since the property

was used by the public for the purpose of burial ground and the

same is ordered to be reserved for the use of public as burial

ground. Neither defendant No.6 nor his subordinates have

trespassed the suit schedule property. The defendants have

issued an endorsement for the legal notice dated 06.09.2016

stating that the khatha cannot be mutated in favour of the

plaintiff.

Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the

Trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff got examined

himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to

P43. On the other hand, defendant No.6 has examined himself

as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D4.

The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence available on record came to the

conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit

schedule property and answered issue No.2 that the property is

used by the public for the purpose of burial ground and

declined to pass an order of injunction on the ground that the

plaintiff has not established the possession over the suit

- 6 -

schedule property while answering issue Nos.4 and 5 and

dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and

decree, an appeal had been filed, which is number