Ownership and possession claims necessitate substantiation of evidence regarding alleged encroachment and property boundaries.

CAV JUDGMENT

The present Regular Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018, in R.A.No.67/2017 passed by the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’) confirming the Judgement and decree dated 15.03.2017, in O.S.95/2008, passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., at Srinivasapura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff/appellant before the Courts below and the respondent herein is the defendant/respondent before the Courts below.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.95/2008 against the defendant on the file of Court of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., at Srinivasapura for the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having purchased Site No.30 under a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2003 from its previous owner, T.N. Sampath Lakshmi, and another site bearing No.28 from its previous owner, Md. Munawar S/o. Ghouse Sab, both forming part of Sy.No.174 measuring 2 acres 11 guntas situated at Srinivaspura Taluk. The said land originally belonged to Jama Masjid, Srinivaspura Town, and upon application, was converted for non-agricultural purpose on 12.03.1990 in ALN.CR.2/89-90, and thereafter the Town Municipality approved the layout plan and changed the revenue records in the names of the vendors.

6. The plaintiff claims that from the date of purchase he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said vacant sites without obstruction, his ownership and possession being duly recognized in the revenue records and he has been regularly paying kandayam and other dues to the Government. According to the plaintiff, there exists a 20 feet East-West road between Sites No.28 and 30, and the defendant, having no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, has illegally attempted to interfere and, despite pendency of the suit, has willfully encroached over the suit schedule property to the extent of 12 x 27½ feet on the Northern side of Site No.30, leaving 10 feet space from her Site No.31 and laying foundation in violation of the orders of trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff has sought for a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant.

7. Per contra, the defendant filed her written statement, wherein denying material averments made in the plaint and contended that she is the lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having purchased Site No.31, Khatha No.4212, Assessment No.4193, measuring East- West 27½ feet and North-South 40 feet, under a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2005 from its earlier owner, K.R. Kedarnath S/o. K.V. Ramanujam Shetty, for valuable consideration. The said property is bounded on the East by Municipal sites, West by Road, North by Site No.34 and South by Site No.30 i.e., the suit property.

8. The defendant asserts that ever since purchase, she has been in continuous and peaceful possession, her name having been duly entered in the revenue and municipal records. She further contends that the p