The present second appeals are by the unsuccessful

plaintiff assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts

below, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of

title and permanent injunction is dismissed and the

counter claim filed by the defendant seeking declaration

and injunction has been allowed by the Courts below.

2.

The parties herein are referred to as per their

ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title

and permanent injunction asserting that he is the owner of

the property bearing VPC No.769/B measuring East-West:

30' and North-South: 40' by virtue of a registered sale

deed dated 20.12.2001 and the defendant has tried to

construct his building over the property belonging to the

plaintiff by encroaching 10' towards East-West and 23'

towards North-South as per the 'ABCD' in the sketch.

- 4 -

4.

The defendant filed written statement and also

raised counter claim contending that he is the owner in

VPC No.766 and VPC No.767 measuring East-West: 30'

and North-South 23' towards south 15' shown by letters

'ABCDEF' in the hand sketch submitted along with the

written

statement.

The

defendant

denied

the

encroachment in the property of the plaintiff and by way of

counter claim against the plaintiff sought for declaration

and permanent injunction in respect of VPC No.766 and

VPC No.767 and also the 'ABCDEF' portion of the land.

5.

The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings

framed as many as ten issues.

6.

In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff

examined himself as P.W.1 and three witnesses as P.W.2

to P.W.4 and got marked document at Exs.P.1 to P.5. On

the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1

and two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and got marked

documents at Exs.D1 to D.24. The Sub-registrar was

examined as C.W.1 and the PDO was examined as C.W.2.

- 5 -

7.

The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,

oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the

plaintiff with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and allowed the counter

claim of the defendant.

8.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred two appeals in

R.A.No.17/2013 and R.A.No.18/2013 against the dismissal

of the suit and allowing of counter claim.

9.

The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the

entire evidence placed before it and concurred with the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

10.

The present regular second appeals by the

plaintiff assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts

below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and allowing the

counter claim filed by the defendant.

11.

Heard Sri Vinayak Apte, learned counsel for the

plaintiff

and

Sri

S.S.

Mamadapur,

learned

counsel

appearing for defendant and perused the records.

- 6 -

12.

The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff is the

owner of VPC No.769/B measuring East-West: 30' and

North-South: 40'. The defendant is the owner and in

possession of VPC No.766 and VPC No.767 measuring

East-West: 30' and North-South 23' towards south 15'

shown by letters 'ABCDEF'. The property situated between

the boundaries is the suit property over which the

defendant has claimed his ownership and possession. The

defendant contends that 'ABCDEF' portion of the property

was purchased by Ningappa father of the defendant No.1

and uncle Revappa Kallappa Kori through registered sale

deed on 09.02.1966 measuring 18' East-West and North-

South 15' from its erstwhile owner Davalsab Kashimsab

Kasbai. On 23.11.1968, the property 'ABCDEF' measuring

East-West: 12' and North-South: 12' comprising a house is

purchased by Revappa Kallappa Kori from Davalsab

Kashim Katti vide registered sale deed and since from the

date of purchase his uncle and defendant are owners and

in possession of the suit schedule property.

- 7 -

13.

It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff

has already constructed a building over his property in

VPC No.769/B to the extent of East-West: 30' and Nor