Shri Sugnanachari vs Shri Basappa and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Counsel for the appellant.

The appellant was the defendant before the trial Court in a suit, whore the plaintiffs were claiming injunctory reliefs, on the footing that the appellant herein was interfering with the use of a road measuring about 9 guntas on the eastern side, which did not belong to the defendant. However, it was the defendant''s case that the land was granted to him to the extent of 2 acres 29 guntas and that the suit property formed part of the same. However, it has been elicited in the course of evidence that occupancy certificate, in favour of the defendant - appellant was only to the extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and though, he has made an application seeking rectification of the occupancy certificate to incorporate to the extent as 2 acres 29 guntas, the same is said to be pending. However, on findings of fact, it was held that the plaintiffs had established a case for injunction and it was accordingly granted. This has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

The Counsel for the appellant would address this Court at length to demonstrate that the road which is claimed by the plaintiffs was not in existence, on the suit property and it is not reflected in .the village map whereas, the road which exists is on the western side which has nothing to do with the suit property. Further that there is a borewell in the area, which is claimed as road by the plaintiffs and in the event of the impugned judgement and decree being enforced against the appellant, he would suffer irreparable loss, in having to lose his borewell, which is in existence and which is evidenced by material on record.

These findings in favour of the plaintiffs are findings of fact. Even if there is an error in appreciating the material on record by the Courts below, there is no scope for interference by this Court in this appeal, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. However, it is to be noticed that the appellant claims to have made an application before the Land Tribunal seeking connection of an error apparent, insofar as the extent of land covered under the occupancy certificate granted in his favour and if the 9 guntas of land which is the suit property and which is in dispute, is included in the occupancy certificate issued in favour of the appellant, on such correction, the appellant may have a case to sustain and it would therefore be for the appellant to take the correct occupancy certificate and the extent of boundaries therein to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises, with the observation that in the event, that the appellant should succeed before the Laud Tribunal in establishing that the extent of land conveyed under the occupancy certificate, it ought to be 2 acres 29 guntas and not 2 acres 20 guntas, the appellant being enabled to claim the suit property as part of the (sic) granted to him, it would have to be addressed. The respondents herein have no objection to such a contingency being recorded and accordingly, the same is placed en record. The appeal is disposed of with this observation.

Incidentally, the appellant pleads that there is a borewell, which has been installed with great difficulty by the appellant and in view of the judgement and decree that has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court, the respondents are likely to commence using the road, which is said to be on the suit property and it would possibly lead to damage of the borewell. It is for the appellant to ensure that the borewell is protected, till such time he obtains correction of the measurement before the Tribunal. Incidentally, the respondents shall not cause damage to the borewell and shall use the road with care insofar as the borewell is concerned.