Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. He further svub.n1ittAed"th_atl 'no doubt is a power of attorney holder: cannot be discarded joizllyjon is a power of attorney. the basis of his personal l<.noWlle.dge'iand:'as' such, the evidence cannot be discarded. _court has ignored the said while'---V.giyii1g the findings. On these subrnis-sions:,llle_a1"ried Counsel prays that the judgment and ldeereelofljthe trial court required to be set aside. the other hand, Sri.Vyasa Rao, learned it llffC'.oui1.selllfor the plaintiffs submitted that muligeni lease hold rights claimed by the plaintiffs is only in respect of 17 cents on the southern portion of Sy.No. 134 / 3. Issue No.1 is as to 'whether the plaintiffs proves that Narayan. husband of 181 plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos." 2T_to_6 had acquired valid title to the suit schedule _ the Muhgeni registered documents title; a Once the title is proved, the pos.session otherwise, the evidence on record provesVthe'possess3ion , * of not only the deceased but«];;iso by the plaintiffs. He referred'~..t'o_AE;3X.l§?'}l,'4"'th'e:'petition copy in HRC No.6/89. _ objection statementlllyto pointed out that in the objection «tiled by the respondents therein, wherein 'Annappzayya was also the respondent. ll if"has"'icatejgor'ically adrnitted the grant of Moolgeni lease lbytl Matthl¢ni'ti~~1.10.1946 and the said lease is valid. ' _ legai-«4..antl'b;i7r1ding and also admitted that respondent Nose,' 8. "to 12 therein are the sub~tenants and the e._l\/loolgeni tenants are entitled to sublet the lease hold if rights or grant or induct monthly tenants and on this ('Q 14-.) ground the HRC petition was opposed as____ not maintainable. Though, the objections are filed«jb§}f"--th*e'p plaintiffs as well as the defendants proceedings, but in the said obj'e'ct--i.on that. the lease hold rights arefilgranted Narayana and his right of leasing the said proper'ty. lnl't'h'evi_:'said_fiobjeetiorrvat para No.6 it is admitted that .ff":t'e'nants are in possession vis.~.a>=Vi_s itliszi onIy«4.th'e--.ele_s:sees under the Moolgeni lease if the defendants claim '1*i§h_t l\./ldoolgeni tenants and not otherwise, viiisofarfas' in the record of rights he subminied th'at._:'the"sa°id entry has been disputed and in d."this"'frega"1'=d "he referswfto para No.3 of the plaint and entry made without notice to the if inter"e_ste,d 'party, is not binding and cannot be held that it .creates--"any presumption of possession in favour of

21. in the light of the above submissionsgthe points that arise for consideration is as to.

1. W'hether the Judgment and A trial Court is liable to be set aside'-'o_nithe'.V if ground that the plaintiffs i411o't.Asodgli.1;_T,1 t the relief of possession?

2. Whether the *».the trial" Court that, the plai_niiffs_ their title and possesspioimgp --"1feq't:ire's to be interfered 'P V it

22.» """ "which are""no"t in dispute are that the deceased Annappayya are brothers. From the evidence}it7-,_is'~~~also not in dispute that on Moolgeni'*'*'*lease was granted in favour of Plaintiffs and defendants both adn'1itiiithat.isti_i'ti:; schedule property measuring 17 cents Sy. l\>I"o,;il34/ 3 and is a non agricultural land. This fgr;t~isjiA.'eVideneed from the proceeding in HRC No.6/ 89. also not in dispute that Mutt the namely Sri A') Siddapeeta Kodashadri Halwari Mutt, Yadamoge village, Kundapura is a lessor/ owner. The plaintiffs allege that by Virtue of grant of Moolgeni rights Narayana waslyput in possession and thereafter the plaintiffs Plaintiff Nos}, 2 to 6 succeeded to "

23. It is in this regard the material produced by the plaintiffs and defendants is required to be appreciated. Ex.i3'.l is a Moolgeni right granted uvndeira registered document. It is undisputedly granted"on_ly: _ favour of Narayana. However, EX.D.l relied"upon33»y 'the__l W V defendants is a record of rights for a::'period._.fromllil95f'i'::i;_tl 68 and 1978-79 in respect"of'----.§5 of No.l34/3. As against the name of Annappayya is it is not the case of both parties is cultivated by the liswladmitted that the suit prope1~t3;._jSttl' gt residential building. Thus _i_t., cannot:lbe..v'dis'puted that the suit property was llhott "cultii/Aat'ed_. Hovvever, the name of Annappayya is 'in.V".ccVolumn No.9, but on the other column it if _ is Moolgeni right. Whether Annappayya " continued" in exclusive possession or he continued in

25. Even in the objectioni"statement, :}3xl;"i?i8VVVit is admitted that the moolagaj5f1'ill_le:§$§»"o'-granted by Peer Aithwamath Bawaji on legal and binding;This:state§rr1en'tflapproves that the grant made in favour'«of"Narayanaliajadmitted and its effect is also adrnitteclit also .v"admitted that the Moolgeni lease is The main defence of the written statement is that the Moolgeni _lease'~..V granted in favour of Narayana it had "unenforceable or not in force. In the cross 4l_l__~__eX.amination of PW.1 which is relied by the learned T V' counsel for defendants at Para 16 to show that plaintiffs had not raised any objection while constructing RCC buildings. However, the next sentence of the clarifies that it was in respect of 35 cents No.l34/3. It does not amount.;to..adInission:V»hy'.4the'-_ it plaintiffs regarding possession of also not elicited in the evide11.c'e~,_as to which: of "