Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of relief in regard to 4 guntas, the plaintiff filed R.A. No.6/1992 on the file of the Civil Judge, Ramnagaram.
But in the Special Leave Petition filed before this Court, the LRs.
as first defendant, with reference to their rank s in the suit.
1.2 The judgment and decree of the trial companyrt were challenged by plaintiff as well as the first defendant.
Being aggrieved by the decree for injunction in regard to 4 guntas, the first defendant filed R.A. No.10 of 1992.
It is in these circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in regard to 8 guntas of land.
1.4 For the sake of companyvenience, we will refer to the first respondent as plaintiff and the deceased Venkatappa of whom appellants and respondents 2 and 3 are the LRs.
1.1 The first respondent herein filed O.S. No.91/1989 against Venkatappa of whom appellants 1 to 3 and respondents 2 and 3 are the legal heirs and Military Karigowda of whom respondents 4 a to 4 h are the legal heirs in O.S. No.91 of 1985 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Kanakapura, for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property site measuring 8 guntas in Khata No.3458 being Southern portion of Survey No.622/2, situated at Khalaknagar Road, Khalaknagar, Kanakapura Town, Bangalore district, bounded on the East by Municipal drain and companyservancy road, West by houses of Sheriff Khan and house of Mohammed Sabu and Syed Ahmed, North by vacant plot of Rajashekhar and South by Khalaknagar Road .
Feeling aggrieved, three of the LRs.
The appellants herein 3 out of the five LRs.
Both the appeals were heard and dismissed by the first appellate companyrt Civil Judge, Ramanagaram by a companymon judgment and decree dated 13.11.1995, thereby affirming the decree of the trial companyrt.
The said second appeal was allowed by judgment dated 24.9.1998 and the suit was decreed as prayed for, by granting the declaration and injunction as sought, in regard to the entire extent of 8 guntas.
P 12, P 13 and P 14 and had retained 4 guntas.
The trial companyrt decreed the said suit, in part, by judgment and decree dated 11.12.1991 declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of 4 guntas of land on the Southern side of Survey No.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt held that as the Partition Deed showed that the extent of Survey No.
1.3 Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim in regard to a portion of the suit property 4 guntas , the plaintiff filed S.A. No.233/1996 before the High Court of Karnataka.
622/2 was 8 guntas and the plaintiffs vendor Manchamma and her sons were allotted the Southern portion of Survey No.622/2 measuring 4 guntas, the High Court was number justified in decreeing the suit in regard to the 8 guntas.
622/2 was eight guntas and the Northern half was allotted to the share of the first defendant, and Southern half was allotted to the children of Manchamma and that therefore, plaintiff who purchased the portion of Survey No.
Venkatappa, first defendant, had sold only 4 guntas of land under Ex.
The suit of the plaintiff in regard to remaining 4 guntas was dismissed.
The said judgment of the High Court is challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds When the Partition Deed showed that the extent of Survey No.
RAVEENDRAN, J. These civil appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 24.9.1998 in S.A. No.233/1996 and order dated 10.4.2001 in R.P. No.745 of 2000.
The first defendant Venkatappa admitted the plaint averment that he the first defendant had sold an extent of 2.75, 2.75 and 2.75 guntas in all 8.25 guntas of land in Survey No.622/2 to Venkatamma, Siddhayya and Manchayya under Sale Deeds dated 7.9.1949, 7.9.1949 and 30.9.1963 in Para 6 of the written statement .
of first defendant filed a petition R.P. No.745/2000 seeking review of the said judgment.
of the first defendant the widow and two sons of Venkatappa have filed these appeals challenging the Judgment in second appeal and order in the review petition.
622/2 on the Kanakapura village and companysequently, restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession in respect of the said land.
2.2 The plaintiff alleged that Venkatappa the first defendant forcibly removed the boundary stones fixed by the plaintiff and by misrepresenting the facts, obtained Khata No.3404 in his name and immediately sold 4 guntas to second defendant on 19.2.1979.
