1.

This is a second appeal by Ayyappa, the plaintiff.

2.

Ayyappa filed a suit seeking for a declaration that he

was the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No.152/2

measuring 01 acre situated at Jalahalli village of Deodurg

Taluk. He also sought for an injunction to restrain

Neelamma, the defendant from interfering with his

possession. A further prayer was also made for a direction

that his name be entered in the records and the name of

Neelamma be deleted.

3.

It was the case of Ayyappa that the land bearing

Sy.No.152/2 belonged to Sangappa S/o: Ayyappa who

died about 12 years prior to the filing of the suit i.e.,

approximately 1993. He stated that Sangappa S/o:

Ayyappa was also the owner of another land bearing

Sy.No.152/1-2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, which was

adjacent to the suit property. He stated that he was the

son of Sangappa and after his death, his name had been

mutated in the records in the year 1992 as per Mutation

- 3 -

No.5/02-01-1992. He stated that his father Sangappa had

three sons i.e., Mallanna, Ayyappa i.e., himself and

Siddanna and these three brothers had partitioned their

land 15 years ago, and at the time of partition, the suit

property was allotted to him and after the death of his

father, he was cultivating the same and enjoying the fruits

of the land. He submitted that he was also paying the land

revenue in respect of the said land and in the year 2005

he noticed that the revenue records were changed without

notice to him

4.

He submitted that on 09.06.2005, the Tahsildar had

passed an order of mutation in M.R.No.40/2004-05 to

enter the name of Sugappa S/o: Lingappa Soudri who had

died nearly 40 years ago at Jalahalli by deleting his name.

He stated that thereafter one more mutation order was

passed in M.R.No.52/2004-05, by which the name of

Neelamma had been entered in the revenue records. He

submitted that this entire process of mutating the name of

Sugappa S/o: Lingappa Soudri and Neelamma were illegal

- 4 -

and in contravention of the provisions of the Land Revenue

Act. He submitted that since the revenue records right

from the year 1954-55 stood in the name of his father and

after his father’s death his name had been entered

coupled with the fact that he had been paying taxes and

also had raised a loan clearing indicated that he was the

owner of the property and Neelamma had no right over

the same.

5.

Neelamma entered appearance and contested the

suit by filing a written statement. She stated that one

Sugappa S/o: Lingappa Soudri had purchased the land

bearing Sy.No.152/2 measuring 1 acre from one Siddappa

and accordingly his name had been entered in the Khasra

pahani patra as the owner. It was stated in the

subsequent Khasra Pahanies i.e., in respect of the years

1955-56 to 1960-61, the name of Sugappa S/o: Lingappa

Soudri had been entered though there was no such person

called Sugappa S/o: Lingappa Soudri. She stated that

Khasra pahanies in the year 1961-62 upto 1991-92 stood

- 5 -

in the name of one Sangappa S/o: Ayyappa and the same

had been mutated in the records without following any

procedure. She stated that after the death of Sangappa

the mutation had been wrongly made in favour of

Ayyappa, the plaintiff and she came to know about these

wrong entries in the year 2004 and approached the

Tahsildar and sought for rectification. She stated that she

also approached the Assistant Commissioner and after

thorough enquiry on the basis of the report of the Revenue

Inspector, the Assistant Commissioner had directed the

Tahsildar to rectify the entries in the Khasra Pahani patrika

and ordered the name of Sugappa S/o: Lingappa Soudri to

be entered in the Pahani Patra and accordingly mutation

was carried out. She stated that thereafter mutation was

once again effected in her favour on 04.08.2005 through

Mutation No.52/2004-05 and she was thus clearly the

owner of the land and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6.

The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence,

came to the conclusion