1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

R.S.A. NO.833 OF 2015 (INJ)

C/W

R.S.A. NO.832 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

SRI. UMANATHA NAYAK,

S/O KRISHNAPPA NAYAK,

AGED 62 YEARS,

R/AT MUGERU HOUSE,

SANGABETTU VILLAGE AND POST,

BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211.

... COMMON APPELLANT

(BY SRI.K.S.CHANDRAHASA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI GOVINDA NAYAK,

S/O ANNAPPA NAYAK,

AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,

R/AT SANGABETTU VILLAGE AND POST,

BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 211

& COMMON RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

2

THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS ARE FILED

UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.

THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri.K.S.Chandrahasa, learned counsel for appellant

and

Sri.G.Ravishankar

Shastry,

learned

counsel

for

respondent, have appeared through video conferencing.

These appeals are filed by the plaintiff from the

judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal D.K.,

These appeals are posted for admission after issue of

notice respondent.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3.

The facts may be simply stated as under:-

3

Plaintiff stated that he is in actual possession and

enjoyment of 8A9 schedule property having acquired right

over the same as per the partition deed dated 18.05.1996,

entered amongst the family members and schedule 8D9

attached to the said partition deed was allotted to him and

the same is mentioned in 'A' schedule property. Ever since

the date of partition, he has been in actual possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any let or

hindrance by anybody.

It is stated that portions of the house and kottige

belongs to plaintiff and is situated in plaint 'A' schedule

property and the remaining portion of the same survey

number is in Survey No.115 of Sangabettu Village. His

courtyard is situated in survey No.68/5. After the partition

deed, the mutation has been effected and at the time of

effecting mutation, the entries in respect of survey

No.68/5 is mutated separately by making portions as 20

and 21 cents respectively. It is said that except himself no

4

one else has got right over 8A9 schedule property and the

boundaries mentioned in the partition deed itself.

As things stood thus, defendant who is not in good

terms with the plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner of

certain property near the plaint 8A9 schedule property tried

to harass the plaintiff one or the other way and made

attempts to knock away the property. He tried to trespass

into the courtyard of the plaint 8A9 schedule property.

Hence, plaintiff was constrained to initiate action against

defendant by filing a suit.

After service of suit summons, defendant appeared

through his counsel and filed the written statement. He

denied the plaint averments. He stated that the description

of the plaint 8A9 schedule property is not correct and the

property is unidentifiable and boundaries are not correct.

Plaintiff has not produced proper sketch to identify the

property and therefore, contended that he is not entitled

for permanent injunction.

5

Defendant stated that there is a settlement deed

which is dated 18.02.1960, wherein 8X9 schedule property

along with other properties were allotted to him and that

the father of plaintiff - Krishna Nayak, was also given

certain property with definite boundaries. In the 8A9

schedule property, the cattle shed of the defendant is

situated and at no point of time, he has stocked the hay

and dried leaves in the schedule property.

It is further stated that after obtaining temporary

injunction, plaintiff made attempt to dispossess him from

written statement schedule property on 14.04.1999.

Hence, he was constrained t