DECREE

DATED

10.2.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.322/2000 ON THE FILE OF

THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., SHIKARIPURA.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful

defendants

questioning

the

concurrent

findings of the Courts below in granting injunction against

the defendants restraining them from interfering with

plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit

land.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

[[

Plaintiffs instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor in

O.S.No.322/2000 in respect of agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.39 measuring 4 acre 29 guntas. Plaintiffs claim that

5

the property was originally owned by one Ningappa and

Basappa and plaintiffs were the original tenants under the

said owners since 1963. Plaintiffs claim that after coming

into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, did

not choose to file form No.7. Therefore, plaintiffs asserted

that they were in lawful possession since 1963. Plaintiffs

further contended that

widow of Basappa namely,

Annapoornamma entered into an agreement to sell, while

Ningappa also offered to sell his part i.e., 2 acre 10 guntas

of western portion of the land to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim

that they have paid substantial sale consideration of

Rs.3,000-00 out of Rs.4,000-00. Plaintiffs assert that

based on these agreements, they were permitted to

continue in possession over the suit schedule property.

The grievance of the plaintiffs is that defendants who

are the legal heirs of deceased Ningappa and Basappa are

trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land.

Hence, the present suit.

6

Defendants on receipt of summons contested the

proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made

in the plaint. Defendants seriously disputed the allegation

in regard to plaintiffs being inducted by the defendants.

After the death of original plaintiff, his legal heirs

were brought on record. Plaintiff No.B namely, Nagamma

was examined as P.W.1 and five independent witnesses

were examined on their behalf as P.Ws.2 to 6. Plaintiffs

adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to 36(b).

7.

While defendants countering the claim of plaintiffs

examined

defendant

No.2

as

D.W.1

and

adduced

documentary evidence vide Exs.D.1 to 10.

8.

The Trial Court having examined the revenue

records, tax paid receipts and in absence of rebuttal

evidence on possession, answered issues in the affirmative

and recorded a finding that plaintiffs have proved that they

were in lawful possession as on the date of filing of the

suit. The Trial Court has also answered issue No.2 in the

7

affirmative and thereby recorded a finding that plaintiffs

have

succeeded

in

proving

their

possession

and

obstruction by the defendants.

9.

Defendants feeling aggrieved by the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court preferred an appeal in

R.A.29/2009. The Appellate Court having independently

assessed oral and documentary evidence has also come to

conclusion that the entries in the cultivation column at an

undisputed time clearly demonstrate that plaintiffs are in

lawful possession. The Appellate Court has re-appreciated

the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. On examination of oral

evidence, the Appellate Court was also of the view that

plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their lawful

possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the

Appellate Court has proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

These concurrent findings are under challenge.

10.

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants

reiterating the grounds and substantial questions of law

8

formulated in appeal memo would vehemently argue and

contend that the concurrent findings recorded by the

Courts below suffers from perversity. Learned counsel

would point out that plaintiffs are asserting possession

based on tenancy and therefore, he would contend that

the relief sought in the said