9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Title of the plaintiff to 'A' & 'B' Schedule properties. 2. Entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree of Mandatory Injunction. 3. Possession of 'A' & 'B' Schedule property. 4. Bar of the suit by Law of Limitation. 5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree of permanent injunction. Summary: Issue 1: Title The plaintiff claimed that the Government of Mysore granted 25 acres of land to the plaintiff and 20 acres to the defendant in Sy.No.51. The defendant acknowledged the grant but claimed exclusive possession. The court found that the Government order (Ex.P1) clearly specified the land grants, affirming the plaintiff's title to 10 acres in Sy.No.128 and leasehold rights to 15 acres in Sy.No.129. Issue 2: Mandatory Injunction The court noted that the defendant had constructed buildings in Sy.No.129 since 1974. The plaintiff's President had laid the foundation stone, indicating acquiescence. The court, citing various precedents, held that a mandatory injunction to demolish constructions would not be granted due to the plaintiff's acquiescence and delay in objecting to the constructions. Issue 3: Possession The plaintiff did not seek possession but claimed continuous possession. The court found that both parties were in joint possession until 1982-83, after which the plaintiff's name was deleted from records without any basis. The court held that the plaintiff was in possession of 'A' schedule property and the vacant portion of 'B' schedule property, except for the areas where the defendant had constructed buildings. Issue 4: Limitation The court held that the suit for declaration was filed within three years from the date the defendant denied the plaintiff's title (1994), making it within the limitation period. The trial court's finding that the suit was barred by limitation was set aside. Issue 5: Permanent Injunction The court found that the plaintiff had established title and possession over the suit properties and was entitled to a decree of permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, excluding the constructed areas. Final Order: 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The trial court's judgment dismissing the suit is set aside. 3. The plaintiff is declared the owner of 10 acres in Sy.No.128 and entitled to leasehold rights in approximately 12 acres of Sy.No.129, excluding the constructed areas. 4. The plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction is dismissed. 5. The plaintiff is granted a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, excluding the constructed areas. 6. The appeal is allowed with proportionate costs.
|
