They filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property described as a house site measuring 25 x 75 pictorially described in the rough sketch accompanying the plaint and which form part of CTS No.373/3A/1A/2/B in Block No.
According to plaintiffs, the defendants had encroached upon a portion of the suit property to an extent of 15 x 25, put a hutment about three years prior to the suit, and therefore, on the strength of title the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration of title and possession and also sought for injunction against the defendant number to repair or put up any permanent structure on the suit site.
The suit site was originally granted by Municipality to one Thippanna in the year 1962 from whom one Siddalinagana Gouda purchased in the year 1971 under registered sale deed.
Whether the Municipality has got the power to allow the site, which was declared as a slum area by the government in favour of other persons.
The defendants filed the written statement denying the title of the plaintiff companytending that the defendants are in possession of the premises since the year 1969 by putting up hutment and paying tax to the municipality.
One Narasimhappa purchased the suit property from Siddalingana Gouda by a registered sale deed in the year 1978.
Whether the appellate companyrt companymitted error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence regarding the plea of adverse possession put forth by the defendants and the findings thereon are perverse and companytrary to evidence on record?
Background facts in a nutshell are as under Two appeals were filed before the High Court against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bellary in RA No.15/94 and RA No.16/94 arising out of S.No.168/85 and O.S.No.286/88 respectively on the file of Principal Munsiff, Bellary.
According to the High Court though the defendants were in possession under the mistaken assumption of title with themselves or with the Government, same cannot be a ground to hold that the possession is number a hostile possession from the standpoint of the real owner.
It was companytended that the plaintiffs had taken the property as a security in a mortgage transaction from the erstwhile owner.
The suit schedule property which was declared by the Government as a slum area, the action of the Municipality in granting allotment of the same in favour of the other persons.
The following additional substantial questions of law were framed at the time of hearing Whether the appellate Court was right in declaring title of the plaintiffs on the basis of Ex.
According to the High Court, ticklish situation arose in the legal companybat between the parties.
In appeal, the appellate companyrt set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in S.No.168/85 and O.S.No.286/88, upheld the title of the plaintiffs and also granted relief of possession and thus allowed both the appeals filed by the plaintiffs.
Challenge in these appeals is to the companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing in part two Second Appeals filed by the respondents in the present appeals.
The plaintiffs purchased the suit site from Narasimhappa under Ex.
Present appellants filed two appeals against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.168/85 and O.S.No.286/88 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bellary.
24307 24308 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
P.1 on 29.5.1985, two days after filing of the suit.
The plaintiffs claimed title to the property by virtue of entries in the Municipality records.
O.S.No.168/85 was filed by the appellants.
The defendants also companytended that the property is a government land and they are in adverse possession of the property.
A defence was also taken that the area has been declared as a slum area.
XXII, Devinagar, Bellary City.
It is said that the erstwhile owner Narasimhappa had mortgaged the property in favour of plaintiff.
XXIV, Ward No.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
During the pendency of O.S. No.168/85, the defendant No.1 therein filed a suit in O.S. No.286/88.
Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The plaint averments are reproduction of the written statement in S.No.168/85.
P.1 which came to be executed after filing of the suit in S.No.168/85?
The following substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of admission Though the appellate Court has companycurred with the findings of the Principal Munsiff regarding the appellants possession and enjoyment of the property even before the purchase of the property by the respondent, whether the appellate companyrt was justified in dismissing the suit of the appellants for injunction which was decreed by the Principal Munsiff.
The suit filed by T. Somalingappa i.e. O.S.No.286/88 came to be allowed.
Second Appeals were filed challenging companyrectness thereof by T. Somalingappa and Dakshyanamma.
