CAV JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.270/2007 dated 17.02.2014 granting the relief of declaration and injunction and confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.28/2014 dated 23.12.2021. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The counsel for the respondent did not choose to address the arguments inspite of opportunity is given.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent detention is that suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.1 measuring 20 guntas which is morefully described in the schedule is granted to plaintiff on 06.03.2004. It is contented that plaintiff had changed the katha in his name and the survey authority also prepared the survey sketch. From the date of grant, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant has no manner of title, right and possession over the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff was installing the pump set, the defendant obstructed with an intention to cause trouble to the plaintiff by denying the plaintiff’s title and possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. In response to the suit summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the plaintiff’s claim. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The land in old Sy.No.75 and new Sy.No.1 measuring two acres was granted in the year 1959-60 in favour of K.G. Munivenkatappa who is the husband of the defendant. In this regard, survey sketch, Mahazar and Phodi were prepared. After the death of said Munivenkatgappa, the defendant got mutated the said land in her name as per M.R.No.11/2000-2001. Out of two acres of land, two guntas were taken to form the road and remaining extent of 1 acre 38 guntas of land was entered in the name of defendant through M.R.No.57/2005-06 in new Sy.No.1. As such, the defendant is in exclusive possession of the said extent but, the plaintiff got created a new sketch with respect to the suit property which comes within the defendant's land. Hence the claim of the plaintiff is untenable and prayed the Trial Court to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and Additional Issue, which read as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint reliefs?

4. What order or decree?

Additional Issue:

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule property?

6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15. On the other hand, GPA holder of the defendant got examined as DW1 and also examined one witness as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D17. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence answered all the Issues as affirmative and granted the relief as sought in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and also proves the alleged interference by the defendant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.28/2014 by the defendant.

7. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit sch