Shri. Ravi and Shri. Babu vs Shri. Venkataramanappa and Shri. Venkataswamy

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The appellant was the defendant before the trial court. A suit for injunction had been filed in respect Khaneshmari No. 250/1 and 253 of Hulimavu Village. Admittedly, the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the same, but had enjoyed such possession over several decades and possession was claimed through the plaintiff''s father, who was inducted initially in the first place. He had put up of a shed on the suit property and which the plaintiff had continued to occupy The suit was filed against the defendant-appellant herein, who is said to be the neighbouring owner on the northern side in respect of land bearing Survey No. 84/2 measuring 10 guntas. It is the case of the appellant that there was a Court Commissioner appointed during the pendency of the proceedings and in fee report of the Court Commissioner, it is evident that the existence of the plaintiff''s property doubted. The plaintiff was in occupation of a shed in the property belonging to the State Government, which had been subsequently allotted to Adichunchanagiri Mutt or the Ramalingeshwara Cave temple Trust. The plaintiff had mischievously claimed 3428 square feet, which comprised of a sheet-roofed house and appurtenant open space. The learned Counsel therefore would submit that the Commissioner''s Report clearly establishes that there is no such land available for the plaintiff to occupy unless he extends his possession into the land belonging to the appellant and therefore, in grave apprehension of abuse of process of the court in seeking to enforce the decree in respect of the suit property, which is mischievously described as measuring 3428 square feet, it is possible for the respondent to lay claim over the appellant''s property and hence is before this court.

Since the identity of the suit property and the appellant''s property is different, it is for the appellant to protect possession of his property which is not the subject matter of this suit. Therefore, if there is any scope for the plaintiff to misuse the decree, it is for the appellant to protect his property by having the same measured in accordance with law. Hence, that remedy being available to the appellant, the mere possibility of the plaintiff misusing the decree against him, cannot be a ground for negating the decree that has been obtained in respect of the property, other than that of the appellant. There is no dispute on this. Therefore, insofar as the land measuring 10 guntas in Survey No. 84/2 is concerned, the plaintiff has no claim whatsoever and it is for the appellant to safeguard his property in the manner known, to law.

With that observation, the appeal stands disposed of.