ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard arguments of learned counsel for both sides.

2. This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) challenging the Judgment and decree dated 22.01.2008 passed in RA No.45/2007 (Old RA No.5/2001) on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramdurga (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) and to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.04.2001 passed in OS No.19/1987 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ramdurga (for short ‘trial Court’) to decree the suit of the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit before trial Court praying for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs have absolute right over suit schedule property and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over suit schedule property.

4. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is that suit schedule property bearing Re.Sy.No.141 measuring 6 acres 1 gunta situated at Kullur Village, Ramadurga Taluk, is the property of plaintiffs and their forefathers who were enjoying this property as they and their family were working as Halabaki, an inferior village office. Plaintiffs further contended that their grandfather Sri Tammanna Balappa Balannavar resident of Kullur was in possession of this property as Inam land. It was continued in their families; the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 Sri Venkappa was in possession of it, cultivating it and was getting its proceeds. Defendants having no right, title or interest in or over suit schedule property, but because they are very influential family, have colluded with higher officers, illegally got the revenue entries into their names and based on those revenue entries, they are trying to forcibly evict plaintiffs from suit schedule property and hence the suit for appropriate relief.

5. After service of notice, defendants have filed their written statement wherein they denied all other averments made in the plaint. They contended that initially, suit schedule property was in possession of Srimantha Ramachandra Rao Dattaji Rao Shinde and he was the owner of this property. Afterwards, during 1955 there was partition in between said Srimantha Ramachandra Rao Dattaji Rao Shinde and his brothers. He further contended that suit schedule property was Dumaldar Gao Sanadi Inam land and it continued with their possession and accordingly mutation is certified in the year 1954 by revenue officials in the name of elder brother of defendant No.1 and after partition, it is mutated into the name of defendant No.1 as per diary No.281; as per diary No.282, after commencement of Mumbai Inams Abolition Act, as the suit scheduled property was ryotwari land, it continued in the name of defendants. Defendants have planted approximately 200 Eucalyptus plants in 4 acres of suit schedule property. They have obtained loan from Syndicate Bank, Ramdurga Branch for planting the Eucalyptus plantation. As per the plaint pleadings, suit schedule property is Inam land and hence this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court fee paid is insufficient and valuation made for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is incorrect. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues:-.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit land was Halabaki Inam land and the same was given to their fore-fathers for rendering services as Halabas as contended in para 3 of the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are in actual possession and making wahivat of the suit land since their fore-fathers till today?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants have no right or interest over the suit land even then they are interfering the lawful possession of plaintiff?

4. Whether the defendants proves that the suit land has fallen to their share in the year 1955 and ever since they are enjoying the suit