This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 02.08.2014 passed in R.A.No.32/2013

by the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad, confirming the

judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 passed in

O.S.No.33/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge at

Humnabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the

plaintiff before the Trial Court.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are as under:

4

That the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and

permanent injunction with respect to RS.No.154/3

measuring 31 guntas situated at Talmadgi Village. It

is the case of the plaintiff that the father of the

plaintiff - Ismailappa had 3 sons namely Tukappa,

Mallappa and Shivaraj (Plaintiff). The land bearing

RS.No.154 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas, standing in

the name of Ismailappa. After his demises plaintiff

and his brothers got effected partition and in the said

partition suit land RS.No.154/3 measuring 31 guntas

was fallen to the share of plaintiff and the name of the

plaintiff was mutated in RTC and he is the absolute

owner and possessor of the suit land. Further,

defendants have RS.No.153/A and B, situated towards

south of the suit land. The defendants are trying to

destroy the bandara and trying to dispossess the

plaintiff from suit land. Thus, the cause of action arose

5

to the plaintiff to file suit for declaration and

injunction. Hence, this suit.

3.1. Defendants filed written statement denying

the averments made in the plaint and also denied that

the ancestors of plaintiff was owner and possessor of

RS.No.154 and also denied the partition effected

between plaintiff and his brothers, denied ownership

and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and

also denying the alleged interference and cause of

action shown is imaginary. The defendants have also

contended that the RTC of the RS.No.154 are wrongly

appearing and said records required rectification. It is

further

contended

that

the

suit

land

bearing

RS.No.154 is ancestral property of Ramalingappa

Dhabbe and hence they are in possession of the suit

land. It is specifically contended that the plaintiff and

his brothers are in possession of RS.No.153 and not in

RS.No.154. Hence, the defendants have filed counter

6

claim declaring that defendants No.1 to 6 are the

absolute owners and possessors of RS.No.154/1 to 3,

measuring 2 acres 11 guntas and sought for perpetual

injunction restraining the plaintiff and his brothers

from causing interference to their possession over the

suit land and also sought for rectification of revenue

records. The plaintiff filed written statement to the

counter claim and denied the averments made in the

written statement and prayed to dismiss the counter

claim.

3.2. The Trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of

parties, framed the following issues:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves description of

suit property?

2.

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is

absolute

owner

and possessor

of

suit

property?

3.

Whether the plaintiff proves interference by

the defendants as alleged?

4.

Whether the defendants proves that they

are absolute owners and possessors of land

7

bearing RS.No.154/1, 2 and 3, including suit

property?

5.

Whether the defendants proves interference

by the plaintiff as alleged in Counter Claim?

6.

Whether the defendants are entitle for the

relief of rectification of ROR, as prayed?

7.

Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief

claimed?

8.

Whether the defendants are entitle for the

Counter Claim?

9.

What order or decree?

3.3. Plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined

the himself as PW-1 and also examined one witness as

PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P21.

On the other hand, defendant No.3 was examined as

DW-1 and also examined two witnesses as DW-2 and

DW-3 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1 to

Ex.D5. The Trial Court, after recording evidence and

considering the material on record