It was further stated that subsequently Dawalsab Agasimani to whom RS No.
98/2 was allotted to the share of defendants father.
242 of 2001 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore under Section 100 CPC.
98 and accordingly M.E. No.
Therefore, RS No.
No numberice was issued to him.
Therefore, the order made by the ADLR in PH No.
98 originally belonged to the father of the defendant, Hasansab and his brothers.
781 was illegal and number binding on the plaintiff.
98/2 also came to the share of defendants father.
The defendant got the extent of his land entered as 7 acres instead 6 acres 30 guntas.
Right from the date of partition in the year 1973, defendant is cultivating the land measuring 6 acres 30 guntas and the plaintiff is cultivating the land measuring 7 acres and 10 guntas.
The same has number been challenged by the defendant so far.
The trial Judge, after framing necessary issues and companysidering the relevant materials, decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of suit property measuring 7 acres 10 guntas in RS No.
In other words, the High Court based its reliance as per Ex.
BRIEF FACTS Mahaboobsab Modinsab Agasimani, plaintiff in O.S. No.
D 11 as number admissible since the same was number properly proved by the defendant.The High Court proceeded on the basis that it was during 1985 as per arrangement in Ex.
98/1 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas was given to Nabisab A Agasimani, RS No.
98/2 was allotted, given up his claim in respect of that land and thus the said RS No.
Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, the unsuccessful defendant filed Regular Second Appeal No.
Both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court discussed the issue in detail and rightly came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of 7.10 acres and number 7 acres as alleged and erroneously companycluded by the High Court.
The First Appellate Court, after framing necessary points for companysideration, accepted the findings rendered by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 06.02.2001.
In the light of the factual companyclusion arrived by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, we are of the view that the High Court has companymitted an error in interfering on a question of fact which was number permissible under Section 100 CPC vide P. Chandrasekharan and Others vs. S. Kanakarajan and Others, 2007 5 SCC 669 and Basayya I. Mathad vs. Rudrayya S. Mathad in Civil Appeal No.
D 11 and more particularly when DW.2 who was examined to prove Ex.
129 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli is the appellant in the above appeal.
P1 the extent of RS No.
Since the defendant started denying the title of the plaintiff to the entire extent, the plaintiff companystrained to file the suit for declaration of his title.
As per the oral partition, RS No.
The defendant is the owner and in possession of R.S. No.
The appellant plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration declaring him as the absolute owner of the suit property bearing RS.
192/87 was illegal and companytrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Code.
Though variations were made in the record of rights, the plaintiff companytinued to enjoy 7 acres and 10 guntas, whereas the defendant is in actual possession of only 6 acres and 30 guntas.
Subsequently, father of the plaintiff and others got their shares entered vide ME No.
66 of 1994 before the First Addl.
On the above pleadings, plaintiff himself was examined as PW.
1 and one Lalsab as PW.2 apart from exhibiting documents, namely, Ex.
Therefore, certification of ME No.
98/3 of Palikoppa village.
RS.No.
District Judge, Dharwad.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.
Questioning the modified decree to the extent of 10 guntas, the plaintiff, after obtaining special leave, has filed the present appeal.
Accordingly, M.E. No.
In this way, defendant and his brothers became the joint owners of RS No.
Heard Mr. M. Khairati, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant.
Defendant resisted the suit, inter alia, companytending in his written statement that the plaintiff has wrongly described the property as 7 acres and 10 guntas.
98/2 and 98/3 were equally divided between two brothers i.e. grandfather of the plaintiff and father of the defendant and each got 7 acres to their share, the same was intimated to the village accountant and on that basis entry was made.
In short, according to the defendant, he has been the owner in possession of 7 acres in RS No.
98/2 and the plaintiff is the owner in possession of 7 acres in RS No.
According to the plaintiff, he is the owner and in possession of the suit property which came to the share of his father in the year 1973 in their family adjustment among the brothers.
Though the suit property measuring 7 acres 10 guntas, there was an entry in the record of rights to the extent of 7 acres and 30 guntas.
D 1 to D 16 in support of his defence.
1869 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
600 came to be made on 01.05.1980.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
98/2 and 98/3.
None appeared for the respondent.
P 1 to P 16.
98/3 measuring 7 acres fallen to the share of the plaintiff.
In that partition, RS No.
In this way, M.E. No.
98/2 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas was given to Dawalsab Agasimani and RS No.
During 1973, there was an oral partition of RS No.
98/2 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas since 1973.
The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 08.07.2005, modified the judgment and decree of the Courts below and held that the plaintiff is owner in possession only to an extent of 7.00 acres.
98/3 is 7 acres and 10 guntas.
480 came to be certified.
Both the lands are adjacent to one another.
98/2 measuring 7 acres fallen to the share of defendant and RS No.
On the side of the defendant, his son has been examined as DW.1 and one Dawalsab Agasimani as DW.2 apart from marking Ex.
Subsequently, all the five sons of Hasansab partitioned these properties in the year 1985.
712 came to be certified on 20.01.1985.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant preferred Regular Appeal No.
Like that of the trial Court, the First Appellate Court raised a doubt about the factum of 1985 partition.
The plaintiff, by filing an application to the Revenue Authority, got it rectified as 7 acres 10 guntas.
93/3 measuring 7 acres and 10 guntas situate at Palikoppa in Hubli.
98/3 measuring 7 acres 10 guntas was given to father of the defendant.
242 of 2001 modifying the judgment and decree in part that the plaintiff is owner and in possession only to an extent of 7.00 acres of land.
2591 of 2006 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
This entry made by the Revenue Authority was illegal and without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
The Appellate Court also companycluded that as per Ex.
1349 of 2001 dated 24.01.2008 2008 1 Current Tamil Nadu Cases 537.
