AND

DECREE

DATED

28.5.2007

PASSED

IN

O.S.NO.86/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND

JMFC, GUNDLUPET.

THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 10.10.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The defendants are before this Court impugning the

judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in RA No.60 of

2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Chamarajanagar

(hereinafter

referred

to

as

'the

First

Appellate

Court'

for

brevity),

whereunder,

the

appeal

preferred by the plaintiff was allowed by setting aside the

judgment and decree dated 28.05.2007 passed in OS No.86

of 2004 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and

JMFC, Gundlupet (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'

for brevity) and the suit of the plaintiff for permanent

injunction

was

decreed

restraining

the

defendants

3

permanently from causing interference in the possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred

to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed

the suit OS No.86 of 2004 for permanent injunction

restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property by the plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff that

the suit schedule property was originally belonging to late

Malledevaru of Belavadi village, as he purchased it under the

registered sale deed dated 31.08.1945. The plaintiff is the

grand son of the said Malledevaru who about 40 years back.

After his death, the property came in possession and

enjoyment of his son B M Kendagannaswamy i.e., the father

of the plaintiff. He also died about 20 years back and

thereafter, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the

property. The khata stands in his name and he is paying the

revenue.

4.

The plaintiff contended that with an intention to

construct the residential house over the schedule property, he

4

obtained licence from Hundipura Gram Panchayath, which is

dated 19.06.2004. The grandfather of the plaintiff purchased

the vacant site measuring East to West 22 yards and North to

South 14 yards, out of which, 2 yards on the Western side

and 8 yards on the Eastern side and 2 yards on the Southern

side were given to Gram Panchayat for public purposes. The

Gram Panchayat formed a galli both on the southern and

western side. A public well was also sunk about 5 years back.

Therefore, the site is called as 'Bavi Niveshana'. After giving

the right over the piece of land, the schedule property

measures 12 x 12 yards, which is in possession of the

plaintiff.

5.

It is contended that the father of the plaintiff had

constructed temporary shed over the schedule property which

is still in existence, but is in dilapidated condition. The

defendants who were not having any right, title or interest

over the schedule property and even though they are not the

adjacent owners, came near the schedule property on

10.11.2004 and started interfering with the construction work

undertaken by the plaintiff. The defendants have threatened

to assault the plaintiff and asked him to stop the construction

5

work. Since the plaintiff could not resist the high handed acts

of the defendants has filed the suit for permanent injunction

restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

6.

The schedule appended to the plaint describes the

vacant site with temporary shed measuring East to West 12

yards and North to South 12 yards in assessment No.314 of

Hundipura Gram Panchayath, Belavadi village, Gundlupet

Taluk, as per the boundaries mentioned therein.

7.

The defendants have appeared before the Trial

Court and filed their written statement contending that the

suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The averments made

in the plaint regarding the titl