Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. What order?

8. On consideration, points no.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing appeal, setting aside trial Court decree and dismissing suit. Aggrieved thereby, plaintiff is in second appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:18998 HC-KAR

9. Sri B. Vachan, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted appeal was against divergent findings in suit for bare injunction wherein, plaintiff was claiming to be in possession of suit property under Ex.P16 - agreement of sale dated 22.01.1992 executed by Sri Chandrappa after receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- and delivering possession. When defendant attempted to dig drain and form road. It was submitted, defendant's claim that land bearing VS no.1 included Sy.nos.58 to 61, which he had retained after selling lands bearing VS no.2 which included Sy.nos.55 to 57 and VS no.3 included Sy.nos.52 and 54 to Chandru (plaintiff's vendor), was incorrect. In fact, Sy.no.58 was included in VS no.3 after survey, in year 1991-92. On appreciation of entire material trial Court decreed suit holding plaintiff was in possession of suit property and defendant's name was mutated after filing of suit and as per Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('KLR Act', for short), revenue entries attracted presumption. It also noted, as on date of filing of suit, name of plaintiff's vendor was shown and ADLR-Court Commissioner's report showed plaintiff's possession.

11. It was further submitted, defendant had not denied title of plaintiff's vendor, but claimed to be in possession of suit property and disputed identity of suit property. It was submitted on 22.10.1993, ADLR - Court Commissioner submitted report showing extent in possession of parties with boundaries. It was contended defendants had not filed objection to report. Only in cross examination, DW.1 denied Court Commissioner's report. Failure to file objections would imply acceptance of report. Commissioner's report would establish plaintiff's possession. It was submitted, trial Court decreed suit based on its finding about possession and relying on consistent revenue records.

19. It was submitted, material on record showed defendant had sold property bearing VS no.2 and 3 to plaintiff's vendor, which did not include Sy.no.58. Even in para 2 of plaint, it was stated that property purchased was part of VS

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18998 HC-KAR no.2. As stated in para 4 and 5 of written statement, consistent stand of defendant was that she retained VS no.1. It was further submitted, there was no material to establish that property agreed to be sold under Ex.P16 was situated in VS no.1. It was further submitted, ADLR - Court Commissioner's Report showed that land bearing Sy.no.59, 60 and 61 belonged to defendant. Therefore, plaintiff's claim that suit property was in VS no.3 was illogical and without proper explanation.

Exs.P14 & P15 - RoR of 1994-95 and 1995-96 of Sy.no.58 measuring 1 Acre 15 guntas showing entry of name of M.Chandru as per MR no.2/1975-76.

Ex.P16 - Agreement of sale dated 22.01.1992 executed by M.Chandru in favour of plaintiff in respect of property bearing (Old VS no.3) new Sy.no.58 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas.

Ex.P17 - Index of land, showing VS nos.2 and 3 of Kashipura village were Inam lands.

Exs.P18 & P19 - Survey Sketch and Report of Sy.no.58 prepared by ADLR, Shivamogga, prepared as per ADLR-HB/no.138 of 1991-92.