This appeal is filed by defendant challenging the

judgment and decree dated 06.01.2007 passed in

O.S.No.78/2005 by the Senior Civil Judge, Aland,

whereby he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff by

declaring him to be the owner and issued injunction

against the defendant.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred with the ranks occupied by them before the

trial Court.

3.

The case of the plaintiff is that he is the

absolute owner in possession of the residential

premises bearing panchayath No.2-43 situated in

Village Sanagunda of Aland Taluk, which is described

in schedule ‘A’. The suit schedule property is

3

ancestral property of the plaintiff and genealogical

tree is given as schedule ‘B’. According to plaintiff,

partition took place about 50 years back between

heirs of one Shankar Rao Patil and in the said partition

the entire house had fallen to the share of six sons of

ancestors of Shankar Rao Patil i.e. plaintiff through his

wife Adamma. The suit property and other properties

situated on East of the suit schedule property had

fallen to the share of Sharanappa, the deceased son of

ancestor through his second wife Bheembai. It is

further asserted that in the partition between the sons

of Shankar Rao Patil, the property situated just

adjacent to the suit schedule property on the east fell

to the share of defendant and he is in possession of

the same. It is also contended by the plaintiff that

there was partition between six sons of Shankar Rao

Patil, through third wife Adamma and the suit

property bearing panchayath No.2-43 had fallen to the

4

share of plaintiff’s father Malakappa and after his

death the plaintiff has inherited the same. He has

also contended that name of plaintiff mutated to the

suit schedule property and he is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying

tax. The defendant has no right title or interest over

the suit schedule property. It is further contended

that the suit house has got only one door facing

towards east as shown in the rough sketch and the

house of plaintiff and defendant are independent

house and they were numbered separately. It is

contended that the defendant claiming right and

possession over some portion of the entire house

property shown by letter “y” in the sketch and also

filed an application to panchayath for grant of license

which was objected by the plaintiff. The defendant

has denied the title of plaintiff over the suit property

and tried to interfere in plaintiff’s possession over the

5

suit property. Hence, according to plaintiff there is a

cause of action to file the suit and as such he filed the

suit seeking declaration of title and injunction against

the defendant.

4.

The defendant has appeared and filed

written

statement

denying

allegations

assertions

made

thereunder.

He

disputed

genealogical tree placed by the plaintiff. He

contended that ‘y’ portion of the sketch map does not

belong to the total ownership of plaintiff. He

contended that the suit is not maintainable and Court

fee is insufficient. It is further contended by the

defendant that he is owner in possession of his

specific property which is disclosed in the hand sketch

appended to the plaint shown by red colour and he

has sought necessary construction permission and

plaintiff

has

made

false

objections

before

6

panchayath. It is contended that when panchayath

has asked the plaintiff to produce the documents to

substantiate his objection, he filed this false suit by

suppressing real facts. The defendant further

contended that plaintiff and defendant are owners and

possessors of respective properties as shown in his

hand sketch in red and blue colour and the common

area is in use and enjoyment of the plaintiff and

defendant which is shown in green colour. He admits

that both the properties of plaintiff and defendant are

given separate panchayath number. According to

defendant his property was old and in order to

reconstruct, he wanted panchayath permission and at

that ti