This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the

learned counsel for the appellant.

The factual matrix of the case of the appellant-

plaintiff while seeking the relief of permanent injunction against

the defendant is that, he is the absolute owner and in

possession of an agricultural land measuring 1 acre, 35 guntas

bearing Sy.No.26/5 situated at Kodagavalli Village, which

includes the suit schedule 35 guntas of property. According to

the plaintiff, the suit schedule property originally belongs to his

grandmother one Alikamma, W/o. Alike Gowdra Badaiah of

Kodagavalli Village. It is the further case of the plaintiff that,

his grandmother, during her lifetime was in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property and had died in the

year 1975 by leaving behind the plaintiff as her legal heir to

- 3 -

succeed her estates. As such, the plaintiff claims that, he had

inherited the suit schedule property from his grandmother and

acquired his right, title, interest and possession over the suit

schedule property. It is contended that the defendant is a

stranger to the suit schedule property and he is no way

concerned to the said property and has no manner of right

whatsoever over the said property. It is also contended that

the defendant is a resident of Bacchaboranahatti Village,

Chitradurga Taluk and he was never been in possession of the

suit schedule property at any point of time. But, the defendant

is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the

suit schedule property by obstructing the agricultural work.

Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

3.

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant

appeared and filed the written statement denying the

contention of the plaintiff. It is contended that he is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property measuring 35

guntas and he had purchased the suit schedule property under

a registered sale deed dated 12.07.1978 for a valuation

consideration of Rs.1,500/- from his vendor Alikamma i.e., the

grandmother of the plaintiff. The property totally is 1 acre, 35

- 4 -

guntas in suit Sy.No.26/5 and other properties are the self-

acquired properties of the grandmother of the plaintiff and out

of the total extent of 1 acre, 35 guntas, she had sold the suit

schedule 35 guntas of property in favour of the defendant and

had further sold the remaining 1 acre of property to one

Siddappa, S/o. Kengappa under a registered sale deed dated

21.06.1977. It is contended that, as per sale deed dated

12.07.1978, the khatha of the suit schedule 35 guntas of

property was mutated into his name under M.R.No.7/78-79 and

as per the sale deed dated 21.06.1977, the khatha of the

remaining 1 acre property was mutated into the name of one

Siddappa, S/o. Kengappa. However, the mutation order in MCR

No.176/78-79 in respect of the suit schedule property was

rejected, as at the relevant point of time, Fragmentation of

Land Act was in force and as such, the revenue records of the

suit schedule property was not changed into the name of the

defendant, as the suit schedule property purchased by him is a

fragmented land. The defendant further contend that, since

the date of purchase of the suit schedule property, he was in

possession and enjoyment of the same along with his family

members, including his sister by name Obamma and paying tax

- 5 -

to the concerned authority. However, the RTC pertaining to the

suit schedule property was continued in the name of the

grandmother of the plaintiff Alikamma till 2011-12. The

defendant further contended that, after the death of his

grandmother, the plaintiff by colluding with the revenue

officials had managed to get change the khatha of the suit

schedule property into his name under M.R.No.H27/11-12 by

giving false information to the revenue authorities and the said

mutation order has been challenged by the defendant before

the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga in R.A.No.39/2013-14

and the Assistant Co