IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.91 OF 2014

Between:

Puttaramu

S/o Chaluve Gowda

Aged about 47 years

R/at Belagola Village

Belagola Hobli

Srirangapatna Taluk-571 438.

…Appellant

(by Shri Varadarajan M S., Advocate)

And:

V R Venugopal

S/o V Ramaiah

Aged about 47 years

R/at Anaga Halli Village

Belagola Hobli

Srirangapatna Taluk-571 438.

…Respondent

(by Shri V. Srinivas, Advocate)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree

dated 08.10.2013 passed in RA.No.142 of 2012 on the file of the

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at

Srirangapatna, dismissing the appeal and confirming the

judgment and decree dated 28.09.2012 passed in OS.No.34 of

2

2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Srirangapatna.

This Appeal coming arguments being heard, judgment

reserved, coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, the

court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff is the appellant in this Regular Second Appeal

challenging the judgment and decree dated 08^th October, 2013

passed in Regular Appeal No.142 of 2012 by III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (Sitting at Srirangapatna)

wherein the judgment and decree dated 28^th September, 2012

passed in O.S No.34 of 2007 by Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Srirangapatna came to be confirmed.

2. The brief facts, as averred in the plaint, for the purpose

of disposal of this appeal are that, the plaintiff has filed suit for

declaration with consequential relief of possession. It is averred

in the plaint that, plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are the

ancestral properties of the plaintiff and he has inherited the

same as per MR No.4/2005-2006 dated 12^th September, 2005.

He further submitted that the plaintiff is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendant is the

3

owner of the neighbouring land situated towards the southern

side of the suit schedule properties. It is further averred in the

plaint that the plaintiff has surveyed the suit schedule properties

on 22^nd January, 2005 and thereafter came to know that the

defendant had encroached 1.30 acre out of 2.24 acres of the

land belonging to the plaintiff, as per the encroachment area

shown in plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Pursuant to the survey

made by the competent authorities it is averred in the plaint that

the defendant refused to hand over the possession of ‘B;

schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for

declaration with regard to ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties against

the defendant seeking possession of ‘B’ schedule property from

the defendant.

3. After service of notice, defendant entered appearance

and filed detailed written statement denying plaint averments.

It is the case of the defendant that defendant is the owner in

possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the

same from one Lakshmamma W/o Late Thimmegowda and her

family members through a registered sale deed dated 13^th

4

February, 2004 for valuable consideration of Rs.5,81,000/- and

thereby, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest

insofar as suit schedule property is concerned. Along with

written statement, the defendant has made counter claim

against the plaintiff seeking declaration that the defendant is the

owner of the suit schedule properties with consequential relief of

permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the defendant.

4. The trial Court after considering the pleadings on

record, has formulated the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner

of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff further