AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—This second appeal is heard and disposed of finally.
Appeal was by the Plaintiffs in the trial court following suit for injunction being dismissed by the trial court and lower appellate court concurring
with the trial court by dismissing the Plaintiffs appeal.
The suit of the Plaintiffs for permanent injunction was based on the grant certificate under which the Plaintiffs claim to have been granted 9 acres
32 guntas of land and it was in resurvey No. 89 and later on after the Tahsildar effected phodl survey number came to be re-numbered as 125.
Following the Defendants interfering with the Plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the relief of injunction was sought. It was the
specific case of the Plaintiffs that grant was made in favour of the Plaintiffs father Thammaiah in the year 1950.
The Defendants resisted the said suit of the Plaintiffs by setting up the stand that the Defendants were granted by the Government 9 acres 32
guntas of land in Sy. No. 89 which later came to be re-numbered as 125 and 126 and therefore the suit of the Plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed
as the Plaintiffs had indicated the land which falls in the survey number of the Defendants as per the grant order.
The aforesaid stand of the parties had to the issues being framed by the trial court calling upon the Plaintiffs to prove their possession over the
suit property and the interference by the Defendants. Both the said issues were answered in the negative following evidence appreciation by the
trial court. The suit was dismissed. The appellate court concurred with the trial court in all respects.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that both courts were in error in not taking note of the documents produced by the Plaintiffs in
particular Ex.P11 the grant certificate and also Ex.P20 the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. As such, the findings recorded are
perverse in nature calling for interference in this second appeal. To substantiate the aforesaid argument, learned Counsel took this Court through
the reasoning of the courts below.
On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri. B.M. Siddappa for the Respondents Defendants argued that both courts have taken note of the
documents produced and have arrived at the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have failed to furnish the boundaries of their land and the number given in
the suit schedule as 125 actually pertains to the land belonging to the Defendants under the grant order. The grant order was also produced by the
Defendants and taking that into account, both the courts have held that the Defendants were granted 9 acres 32 guntas of land in Sy. No. 89 which
came to be re-numbered as 125 and 126, whereas the Plaintiffs father Thimmaiah was given only 6 acres in Sy. No. 89 (New Sy. No. 124). Both
the courts have considered all the documents and held that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the exact boundaries of their land and as the suit was
for injunction, no relief could be granted to the Plaintiffs. As such, no error can be found In the judgment of the courts below.
Having thus heard both sides, in so far as the suit land is concerned, it is mentioned as falling in Sy. No. 125 measuring 9 acres 32 guntas of
land. However, the document produced by the Defendants indicated that the Defendants were granted land measuring 9 acres 32 guntas in Sy.
No. 89 later changed into 125 and 126. The Plaintiffs did not dispute this fact in the course of the cross examination of DW-1. In Ex.P11 the grant
certificate, no mention is made as to Plaintiffs having been granted 9 acres 32 guntas of land. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence placed
before the courts below had to the view that the Plaintiffs had not established that the suit land was granted to them.
In the light of the aforesaid reasoning of the courts below and the evidence appreciation by the trial court, as well as the lower appellate court,
also indicating no perversity of finding, I do not see any substantial question of law arising for consideration.
For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.