This captioned appeal is filed by the defendants

questioning

the

judgment

and

decree

dated

17.03.2004

passed

in

O.S.No.70/2002

(Old O.S.No.110/1999) on the file of the Civil Judge

(Sr. Dvn.), Harihar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the case are as

under;

The

plaintiffs

have

instituted

a

suit

in

O.S.No.110/1999,

which

is

re-numbered

as

O.S.No.70/2002, seeking relief of declaration to

declare that they are the owners and in possession of

6

the suit schedule property and consequential relief of

permanent injunction is sought to restrain the present

defendants from obstructing their peaceful possession

and cultivation over the suit schedule property. The

subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land

bearing Sy. No.213/3P measuring 2 acres 2 guntas

situated at Sirigere Village, Harihar Taluk.

4. The plaintiffs claim that the suit schedule

property was originally owned by one Hanumanthappa

s/o Kattalagere Basaiah. It is also contended that one

Veerappa was the propositus of the plaintiffs family.

It is further contended that the propositus had two

sons by name Basappa and Basaiah. Basappa had a

son by name Nanjappa and Basaiah had a son by

name Hanumanthappa. The present plaintiffs claim

that they belonged to the branch of Basappa. After

the death of the propositus - Kattalagere Basaiah, his

son Hanumanthappa succeeded to the property in

7

question and became the owner of the suit schedule

property. Having inherited the suit schedule property,

the name of Hanumanthappa was duly mutated in the

revenue records and he was cultivating the suit

schedule property personally during his life time. It is

also contended that Hanumanthappa had only one son

by

name

Gangappa

and

after

the

death

of

Hanumanthappa, his sole son by name Gangappa

became the owner of the suit schedule property and

he was in actual possession and enjoyment over the

suit schedule property. The plaintiffs further claimed

that the said Gangappa was unmarried and he died

about 25 years ago. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim

that since the present plaintiffs represent the branch

of Basappa, they claim that after the death of

Gangappa, the suit schedule properties would revert

back to the co-parceners, who represent the branch of

Basappa. It is also specifically pleaded at para No.4 of

8

the plaint that after the death of Gangappa, 4^th

plaintiff - Shivappa started cultivating the suit

schedule property. The plaintiffs also claimed that

their father Nagappa is no more and therefore, the

suit schedule property would devolve upon the

plaintiffs as they are class-2 heirs. On these set of

pleadings, the plaintiffs asserted and claimed that

they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule

properties.

5. The plaintiffs further contended that the

defendants are the owners of the adjoining lands and

they are in no way concerned to the suit schedule

property. It was further pleaded that the defendants

are bent upon knocking off the suit schedule property

and started asserting right over the suit schedule

property in the year 1990. The plaintiffs also

contended

that

defendant

No.1

submitted

an

application to the Deputy Tahasildar, Malebennur to

9

change katha in his name and the same was objected

and the Revenue Authorities relegated the defendants

to approach the Civil Court to establish their rights.

The defendants having failed to get their names

mutated in the revenue records, tried to dispossess

the plaintiffs on 06.07.1999 and therefore, the

present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and

consequential relief of injunction.

6. The defendants on receipt of summons

contested the proceedings by filing written statement

and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the

plaint and specifically contended that the present

defendants are the descendants of the propositus

Hanumanthappa.

The

defendants

specifically

conte