1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.711 of 2011 (INJ)

BETWEEN

1.

SMT. PUTTANANJAMMA,

W/O. BHASKAR M.H.,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

2.

HARISHBABU,

S/O BHASKAR M.H.,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 8^TH CROSS,

SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MALAVALLI TOWN,

MANDYA DISTRICT–571 430.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

SMT. GOWRAMMA,

W/O. DEVARAJU,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

RESIDING AT 2^ND CROSS,

SIDDARTHA NAGAR,

MALAVALLI TOWN,

MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 430.

2.

ANUSUYA,

D/O. BHASKAR M.H.,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

PRESENTLY

2

RESIDENT OF No.17/98,

100 FEET ROAD,

SUBHASHNAGAR,

MANDYA–571 401.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2011

PASSED IN R.A.No.85 of 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MALAVALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL

AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

17.12.2005 PASSED IN O.S.No.173 of 2000 ON THE FILE OF

THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) MALAVALLI.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant

Nos.1 and 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree

passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, in

R.A.No.85/2006 dated 03.01.2011 (herein after referred to

as First Appellate Court) for having allowed the appeal by

setting aside the dismissal of the suit passed by the Civil

Judge, (Junior Division), Malavalli, in O.S.No.173/2000

dated 17.12.2005 (herein after referred to as Trial Court).

3

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the

respondents.

3.

The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court

is retained for convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is

that the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property i.e., land measuring 61 aeirs (61 guntas) in

Sy.No.649/1 situated at Marehalli Village, Malavalli Taluk

and the defendants trying to interfere with the portion of

the property and it is claimed that the plaintiff was in

possession of suit schedule property as per khatha under

M.R.No.160/1998-99. Hence, suit filed against the

defendant for injunction.

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the trial Court,

defendants appeared before Court and filed written

4

statement by denying the averments of the plaint and

contended that the property in Sy.No.649 measuring 2

acres 27 guntas was owned by Deva @ Devaraguddayya

and out of 2 acres 27 guntas, a portion of the land

measuring 1.27 guntas on the Southern side was sold in

favour of Chikkanna by sale deed dated 12.03.1945 for a

sum of Rs.365/- since then, the said Chikkanna enjoyed

the property. After the sale, Sy.No.649 was measured and

pucca phoded. A new number was given as Sy.No.649/1

for the land measuring 1 acre 11 guntas kharab was

assigned to Deva @ Devaraguddayya and Sy.No.649/2 for

the land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas + 19 guntas kharab

was assigned to the Chikkanna and there was no Kharab

assigned in respect of Deva @ Devaraguddayya. Despite

by mistake 10 guntas kharab was shown in Akharabund

and in the RTC 11 guntas was shown. However, in respect

of the said order and entry, a Revision Petition came to be

filed before the Deputy Commissioner in R.Mis.144/2000.

A stay was also obtained and the plaintiff was not satisfied

with the 10 guntas of kharab but has claimed 40 guntas of

5

hy