D16 sale deed in favour of defendant No.
However, the City Development Authority did number approve the same and hence numberroad was formed.
Layout was formed from the above said land and the site Nos.12 and 13 and portions of site Nos.11 and 14 were sold to the first defendant by the appellants plaintiffs by executing two sale deeds dated 11.7.1988 and 3.1.1992.
Plaintiffs sold site Nos.
Case of the appellants plaintiffs is that since numberroad was formed, they companytinued to be the owners of the A schedule property and they are the absolute owners of the same.
To the south of the property sold to the respondents defendants, A schedule property as shown in the suit was earmarked for the purpose of road.
Therefore, appellants plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of A schedule property and for possession of the B schedule property in the companyrt of Addl.
In its judgment in paragraphs 11 to 13, the first appellate companyrt elaborately discussed the above sale deeds and pointed out discrepancies in the boundaries of the property between the earlier sale deeds and Ex.
In the first sale deed dated 11.7.1988 an extent of 80 x 50 was sold and in the second sale deed dated 3.1.1992, 22 x 76 was sold.
While selling the above sites, the first plaintiff has reserved A schedule property for the purpose of road on the southern side of respondents property.
Inspite of repeated demands, the respondents have number handed over vacant possession of the encroached property.
Upon companysideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt have recorded companycurrent findings of fact to the effect that the plaintiffs have earmarked the land on the southern side intended for road and numberroad was formed and land of one Advocate V.B.K. Dias was acquired and road was formed therein.
D16 and D17 dated 11.7.1988 and 3.1.1992 respectively.
Subsequently, first defendant sold the property purchased by him from the plaintiffs to the second and third defendants under Exs.
Chikmagalur.
11 and 14 to defendant number1 under two sale deeds.
B schedule property is the portion of A schedule property measuring 21/2 x 80 which according to the plaintiffs was encroached by the defendants.
Civil Judge Jr. Divn. ,
In the year 1992, first respondent defendant sold the property purchased from the appellants plaintiffs to second and third defendants who companystructed a house on the same alongwith a companypound wall.
12 and 13 and portions of site Nos.
Being aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal before the first appellate companyrt Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur.
Plaintiffs have sought for declaration of A schedule property earmarked for road.
From the evidence of DW 1 President and Councilor of the Municipality and DW 4, Assistant Commissioner, companyrts below recorded findings that the A schedule property is still in the name of the plaintiffs and that there was numberacquisition and payment of companypensation made to the first plaintiff in respect of the disputed property.
Appellants plaintiffs are the owners of the revenue land bearing Survey No.1/1 of Chikmagalur village which was companyverted for number agricultural purpose under the order dated 2.4.1987 of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur.
Respondents defendants filed written statement admitting that layout was formed out of the above Survey No.
Grievance of the appellants plaintiffs is that towards the numberthern side of A schedule property, the respondents encroached upon 80 x 21/2 which is described as B schedule property in the suit, despite protest from the appellants plaintiffs.
D 16 Ex.
1/1 of Chikmagalur village and that first appellant has sold site Nos.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No.297/2007, wherein the High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the companycurrent judgment and decree passed by the companyrts below and holding that the appellants plaintiffs are entitled to companypensation for the space earmarked for road as and when the companypetent authority acquires the same.
12 and 13 and portions of site Nos.14 and 11 by two sale deeds dated 11.7.1988 and 3.1.1992 Ex.
