IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.312/2012 C/W R.S.A.No.313/2012, 2531/2011, 2532/2011,2533/2011, 2534/2011, 2535/2011, 2536/2011, 2537/2011, 2538/2011, 2539/2011, 2540/2011, 2541/2011, 2530/2011 IN RSA 312/2012:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA @ BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK -577522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
K E KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.No.43/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:01.4.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.63/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 313/2012:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA @ BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
K E KRISHNAMURTHY S/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.42/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:01.4.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.63/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2531/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O.BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK 577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
RATHNAMMA W/O.THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS COOLIE WORK, CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.64/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2532/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O.BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
RAJANNA S/O.PURLAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS COOLIE WORK, CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2533/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O.BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
RAJANNA S/O.PURLAIAH AGED 41 YEARS COOLIE WORK, CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.24/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2534/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, FOR SMT. SOWMYA R, ADVOCATE) AND:
M MAHANTESH S/O MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2535/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O.BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
M.MAHANTHESH S/O.MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS COOLIE WORK, CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.26/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2536/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE THALAK HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
UMESH S/O SANNA YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.27/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.55/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2537/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK -577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
UMESH S/O SANNAYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLIV ILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.28/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.55/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2538/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK- 577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
M SHIVAMURTHY S/O MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK- 577 522 ..RESPONDENT (SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.2.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.73/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2539/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHIVAMURTHY S/O MARANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLIV ILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK. ..RESPONDENT (SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.30/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.73/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2540/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
NAGENDRAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.57/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2541/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
NAGENDRAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.57/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
IN RSA 2530/2011:
BETWEEN:
GURAPPA S/O BUDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CHIKKAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA S H, ADVOCATE) AND:
RATHNAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS COOLIE WORK CHIKKAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.64/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., MOLAKALMURU.
THESE RSAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellants – Sri S.H.Nagarajappa. Counsel for respondent fails to co-operate in disposal of the cases. However, in the context and circumstances of the case, appeals are taken up for final disposal.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submit that when the matter is admitted then only the responsibility of respondents would arise otherwise not.
3. The appeals are set down for admission in all the 14 cases. In the light of the submission of counsel for respondents, I proceed to hear the learned counsel for appellants and pass orders.
4. Since all the appeals are filed by Gurappa- defendant, on considering the context and circumstances of the case, the appeals are taken up for common disposal.
5. These are the appeals that are filed in 14 cases against the Judgment and order passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Molakalmuru and learned Senior Civil Judge, Challakere.
6. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are hereinafter referred with reference to their status and rankings as it stood before the trial court.
7. In all the seven suits the respective plaintiffs claim the relief of permanent injunction in respect of vacant sites and the description of which is as under:
Seven suits – the plaintiffs are 1. K.E.Krishnamurthy, 2. Rathnamma, 3. M.Rajanna, 4. M.Mahantesh, 5.
Umesh, 6. M.Shivamurthy, 7. Nagendramma, defendant –Gurappa. The claim of the plaintiffs is as under:
Schedule in O.S. No.63/2005- K.E.Krishnamurthy Vacant Site situated at Chikkammanahalli village, Thalaku hobli, Challakere taluk, Khatha No.374, measuring 25x30 and bounded on East by : Road West by : Road North by : Vacant site of Nagendramma South by : House of Hanumanthappa
Challakere taluk, measuring 30 x 40 and bounded on East by : Vacant land of Government West by : Vacant site of M.Mahesh North by : Hiduvali land.
South by : Road.
Schedule in O.S. No.56/2005 M.Rajanna Vacant Site No.71 situated at Chikkammanahalli Village, Thalaku hobli, Challakere taluk, (Khatha No.374),measuring 30x40 and bounded on East by : Vacant site of Mallesh West by : Vacant site of Thippaiah North by : Hiduvali land.
South by : Road.
Schedule in O.S. No.61/2005 M.Mahantesh Vacant Site situated at Chikkammanahalli Village, Thalaku hobli, Challakere taluk, Khatha No.375, measuring 30x40 and bounded on East by : Vacant site of Rathnamma West by : Vacant site of Malleshi North by : Flour mill South by : Road Schedule in O.S. No.55/2005 Umesh Vacant Site No.30 situated at Chikkammanahalli Village, Thalaku hobli, Challakere taluk, Khatha No.375, measuring 30x25 and bounded on East by : Road West by : Road North by : Shivamurthy’s house South by : Temple.
Schedule in O.S. No.73/2005 M.Shivamurthy Hut measuring 25x30 situated at Chikkammanahalli Village, Thalaku hobli, Challakere Taluk, Khatha No.299, bounded on East by : Road West by : Pathway North by :Government Well South by : Government land.
Schedule in O.S. No.57/2005 Nagendramma Vacant Site situated at Chikkammanahalli Village, Thalaku hobli, Challakere taluk, Khatha No.373, measuring 30x25 and bounded on East by : Road West by : Road North by : Shivamurthy’s house South by : Vacant site.
8. Thus, in all the said seven suits, defendant- Gurappa made counter claim to decree the suit in his favour by dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in respective cases and details are as under:
RSA Number DATE OF FILING 312/2012 – By Gurappa - defendant 313/2012 – By Gurappa- defendant 17.02.2012 17.02.2012
Judgment and decree passed in RA came to be challenged before this court as under:
R.A Number RSA Number 22/2010 –Rathnamma- O.S.64/2005 –counter claim 2531/2011 23/2010 –Rajanna – O.S.56/2005 24/2010 –Rajanna – O.S.56/2005- counter claim 25/2010 – M.Mahanthesh- O.S.61/2005 26/2010-
M.Mahanthesh- O.S.61/2005 – counter claim 27/2010-Umesh- O.S.55/2005 28/2010 –Umesh – O.S.55/2005- counter claim 29/2010 – M.Shivamurthy- O.S.73/2005 30/2010 – M.Shivamurthy- O.S.73/2005 – counter claim 31/2010-
Nagendramma- O.S.57/2005 32/2010-Nagendramma –O.S.57/2005 –counter claim 21/2010 – Rathnamma- O.S.64/2005 2532/2011 2533/2011 2534/2011 2535/2011 2536/2011 2537/2011 2538/2011 2539/2011 2540/2011 2541/2011 2530/2011 9. The plaintiffs in each of the cases claimed ownership and possession and sought relief of permanent injunction before the trial court. Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Molakalmuru, in O.S.No.63/2005 decreed the suit and rejected the counter claim filed by Gurappa.
10. Thus, there was rival claim for the relief of permanent injunction between individual plaintiffs in respective cases and defendant claimed the title over the total property. The land in question is said to be total extent of 16 guntas in Sy.No.1/1A3 of Chikkamanahalli Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The tone and tenor of the claim and contest and the documents produced in all the cases projected one invariable factor that Gurappa, the defendant in all the cases seeks decree in the form of counter claim against each of the plaintiffs and each of the site number in the respective plaint schedule and his contention is that in all the seven cases claim of the plaintiffs in seven original suits being the sites together form 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/1A3 and defendant claims that the said extent of 16 guntas of land was inherited by him as it was his ancestral property.
11. Per contra, respective plaintiffs Krishnamurthy, Rathnamma, Umesh, Mahantesh, Rajanna, Shivamurthy, Nagendramma, claimed that individual sites are located in Gramathana of Chikkamanahalli Village. Sites were formed by the Government and were allotted to the respective plaintiffs under Hakkupathra distributed to each of them by Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat as stated above.
12. The details of proceedings are available in trial court records in O.S.No.63/2005 and connected R.A.No.43/2009 and R.A.No.42/2009. Thus, it is crystal clear that records available are sufficient to cover all the cases. Thus, the matter is dealt with at the stage of admission, records of the other connected cases are dispensed with.
13. In O.S.No.63/2005 at the cost of repetition it is necessary to clarify that plaintiff is one Krishnamurthy, s/o Eranna, Defendant is Gurappa, S/o Budappa. The claim is that Krishnamurthy in particular to O.S.No.63/2005 and other plaintiffs in general in respect of original suits sought the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the sites against defendant and his defence has been that it is claimed that the site was allotted to plaintiff- K.E.Krishnamurthy on 04.06.1998 wherein letter of holding/right was given to the plaintiff by Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat. To a substantial extent the documents filed by plaintiff would help regarding admission of the cases.
14. At this stage learned counsel for respondents though did not submit regarding cases starts interfering with the dictation. He is warned to desist himself from interfering.
15. Among the documents filed by defendants Ex.D-
1 to D-9, Ex.D-5 & Ex.D-6 RTC extracts are important. It is necessary to mention total 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/1A3 is reflected in Ex.D-5 -RTC extract is important. Basically this is the document filed as Exhibit D-5 by the defendant which states that extent of land in Sy.No.1/1A3 is 16 guntas assessed at 0.24 standing in the name of Gurappa-defendant. Extent of 16 guntas however in column No.10 it is stated that ACQ 3/78-79 which reflects that said 16 guntas of land has been the subject matter of acquisition. Apart from that Ex.D-6 is the RTC extract of the year 2007-2008. Thus, no doubt defendant- Gurappa may be the owner of the land and it is stated as acquired. In addition to this Ex.D-7- survey sketch prepared in pursuance of the order of Tahsildar in No.103/04-05 wherein the sketch and the endorsement indicates that the said document is certified copy issued by Tahsildar which specifically says Sy.No.1/1A3 is identified as 16 guntas. Ex.D-9- copy of form No.5, wherein the detail history of Sy.No.1/1A and 1/2 of the same village is reflected and the fact of acquisition is also stated. However, it is in respect of total extent of 1 acre 20 guntas under Sy.No.1/1A2. Further the documents furnished by plaintiffs-site holders are Ex.P-1 –Hakkupathra, issued by Taluk Executive Officer, Panchayat dated 04.06.1998 in favour of K.E.Krishnamurthy plaintiff in O.S.No.63/2005, Ex.P-2 DCB register extract, Ex.P-3 –DCB register extract, Ex.P-4 is the document issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga, to the Tahsildar, Challakere wherein there is a clear recital that 3 acres of land has been acquired in R.S.No.1/1 for the purpose of forming sites. Ex.P-5 is a sketch wherein an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.1/1 and 1 acre and 20 guntas in Sy.No.1/2 are acquired. Thus, it is clear by this time land claimed by defendant –Gurappa in the said cases form 16 guntas and individual plaintiffs are not the owners of the entire land, they claimed that each of them were allotted land by Taluk Panchayat. The sites claimed by each of them jointly becomes total property of 16 guntas.
16. Thus, the only material which the appellant/defendant is contending is RTC in his name for the extent of 16 guntas in Sy.No.1/1A3 which incidentally was subject to acquisition. Thus, when the hold of land is gone out of the defendant-Gurappa, he cannot lay his claim over grantees and with the admitted records defendant has not established his possession over the individual schedule properties and his claim is rejected. At this stage on perusal of the records and the submissions of learned counsel for appellants, I find that all the appeals lack merit in them for admission. There is no point of law urged or available for consideration. Accordingly, appeals are rejected.
However, the approach and attitude of learned counsel for respondents is not appreciable and the same is placed on record.
SBN Sd/- JUDGE