IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL Nos.1524/2007 C/W 1525/2007.
RSA No.1524/2007 BETWEEN SRI CHANNABASAPPA S/O BHARMAPPA AGED 52 YEARS WORKING AS OPERATOR IN PRASANNA TALKIES CHITRADURGA 577 501 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1 SMT.PARVATHAMMA P D/O SAVITRAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2 SMT.SARASWATHAMMA P D/O SAVITHRAMMA AGED 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A CHALUVADI COLONY GOPALAPURA ROAD CHITRADURGA CITY 577501 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. D NAGARAJ, ADV FOR R-1 & 2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.263/2004 ON THE FILE OF I/C.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.1999 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1245/1992 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), CHITRADURGA PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
RSA No.1525/2007 BETWEEN SRI CHANNABASAPPA S/O BHARMAPPA AGED 52 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF OPERATOR IN PRASANNA TALKIES CHITRADURGA 577 502 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATHA HEGDE AND SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATES) AND 1 SMT.PARVATHAMMA P D/O SAVITRAMMA AGED 43 YEARS 2 SMT.SARASWATHAMMA P W/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA D/O SAVITRAMMA AGED 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/A CHALUVADI COLONY 4TH BLOCK, GOPALAPURA ROAD CHITRADURGA CITY 577502 3 THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY CHITRADURGA 577 502 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. D NAGARAJ, ADV FOR R-1 & 2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.264/2004 ON THE FILE OF I/C.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.1999 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1535/1993 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), CHITRADURGA PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellant who is the sole defendant in O.S.No.1245/1992 and second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993 is questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2007 passed in R.A.No.263/2004 whereunder appeal filed by him questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1245/1992 granting permanent injunction in favour of respondents 1 and 2 by partly decreeing the suit to the extent of 18½ feet x 20 feet i.e., residential house constructed by plaintiff in suit schedule property (measuring East to West 36 feet, North to South 20 feet) has been affirmed and judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.264/2004 whereunder appellant/second defendant had sought for grant of mandatory injunction by way of counter claim had been rejected, came to be affirmed.
2. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, this Court is of the considered view that following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether Courts below were right in partly decreeing the suit O.S.No.1245/1992 by properly appreciating the evidence or there has been erroneous appreciation of evidence as a result of which suit has been partly decreed?
(ii) Whether Courts below were right in rejecting counter claim sought by second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993 on the ground counter claim was not filed within three (3) years after service of summons in O.S.No.1245/1992?
3. Parties are referred to as per their rank in Court below:
(a) Smt. Savithramma filed the suit O.S.No.1245/1992 on 22.09.1992 for the relief of permanent injunction namely, to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property namely property bearing khatha No.1164/1911 measuring 36 feet East to West and 20 feet North to South wherein a residential building was claimed to have been constructed by her in an area measuring 18 feet East to West and 20 feet North to South situated at Chaluvadi Colony as morefully described in the plaint schedule contending interalia that she is the owner of property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same for past 30 years and has been paying taxes regularly to Chitradurga Municipality and sole defendant who has no manner of right, title and interest over said property is trying to interfere with her possession and as such, she sought for permanent injunction against defendant.
(b) Sole defendant – Sri. Chnnabasappa, who was served with the suit summons, appeared through Advocate on 08.10.1992 and filed his written statement on 07.10.1993 denying right of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and contended interalia that vacant site bearing No.53 situated at 4th Block, Hosapet, Cheluvana Colony measuring 36 feet x 20 feet within the boundaries described in the sale deed dated 11.02.1987 was purchased by him from one Sri.Sharmad Sab, who has been put in possession of said vacant site in the year 1960 by the Town Municipality. It was also contended after purchase of said site by him in the year 1987, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further contended that plaintiff is a trespasser and had illegally put up a temporary Mangalore tiled shed in an area measuring 18½ feet x 20 feet. Her possession is illegal and he recently noticed that plaintiff had put up construction by encroaching an area of 18½ feet x 20 feet. Hence, he not only asserted his title to the suit schedule property but also claimed that defendant had trespassed into suit property and put up construction. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed the issues.
(c) During the pendency of said suit a notice came to be issued to the plaintiff by the Chitradurga Town Municipality cancelling khatha standing in the name of the plaintiff in respect suit schedule property on the ground that resolution had been passed to said effect on 05.01.1993 by the Municipality. Hence, seeking declaration that resolution dated 05.01.1993 is illegal and unlawful and for grant of permanent injunction to restrain the Municipality from dispossessing the plaintiff, she filed one more suit in O.S.No.1535/1993. In the said suit an application came to be filed on 08.02.1995 by sole defendant of O.S.No.1245/1992 to get himself impleaded. Same was allowed on 06.11.1995 and as such he came to be impleaded as second defendant. On 08.11.1996 written statement was filed by him under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and a prayer for grant of mandatory injunction against plaintiff was sought for by him and also to direct the plaintiff to demolish the existing building and handover vacant possession of the encroached area to the possession of second defendant.
(d) It is appropriate at this stage itself to notice that in the written statement filed by second defendant, he has pleaded that he is entitled for mandatory injunction and his right to suit schedule property and paid Court fee of `25/- on his counter claim. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Judge framed issues for determination.
Issues framed in O.S.No.1245/1992 1 Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit?
2 Whether the plaintiff proves that any alleged interference by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff in her plaint?
3 Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought for?
Issues framed in O.S.No.1535/1993 Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit property on the date of the suit?
Whether the plaintiff proves that the resolution passed by defendant No.1 dated: 5- 1-1993 is illegal, unlawful and unsustainable?
Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant-1 under the resolution dated 16.-3-
1987 confirmed the rights, ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property on accepting the development charges from the plaintiff for the said property?
4 To what order or decree? Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference and obstruction by the defendants and attempted to dispossess from the suit property?
5 Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the plaintiff has illegally occupied and has put up the temporary shed unauthorisedly in an area of 18½’ x 21’ in the suit property belonging to him and that the plaintiff is a trespasser?
6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed?
7 Whether the defendant No.2 is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and possession as prayed?
8 To what order or decree?”
(e) Common evidence came to be recorded in O.S.No.1245/1992, wherein plaintiff- Smt.Savithramma got herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined 2 witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and in all got marked 26 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-26. Sole defendant in O.S.No.1245/1992 and second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993 got himself examined as D.W.1 and also examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked 36 documents in all as Exs.D- 1 to D-36.
(f) Learned trial Judge by a common judgment and decree dated 24.08.1999 partly decreed the suit O.S.No.1245/1992 by granting permanent injunction and restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property to an extent of 18½’ x 20’ including residential structure constructed thereon. Likewise, O.S.No.1535/1993 was also partly decreed and both the defendants came to be restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property to an extent of 18½’ x 20’. Insofar as, counter claim for grant of mandatory injunction sought for by second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993 is concerned, it came to be dismissed.
4. Legal heirs of plaintiff filed R.A.No.258/2004 (old R.A.No.229/1999) and R.A.No.273/2004 (old R.A.No.259/1999) challenging the judgment and decree passed by trial Court rejecting the claim in respect of vacant site measuring 17½’ x 20’ and refusal to grant relief of declaration in respect of resolution dated 05.01.1993. Simultaneously, Channabasappa (sole defendant in O.S.No.1245/1992 and second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993) filed R.A.No.263/2004 (old R.A.No.238/1999) and R.A.No.264/2004 (old R.A.No.239/1999) being aggrieved by the grant of permanent injunction in respect of residential portion in favour of plaintiffs and refusal to grant the relief of mandatory injunction, sought for by way of counter claim.
5. In R.A.No.263/2004 legal heirs of original plaintiff had filed I.A.No.2 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking leave of the lower appellate Court to produce documents by way of additional evidence and it came to be dismissed. Lower appellate Court adjudicated all the four appeals together and by a common judgment and decree dated 07.02.2007 dismissed R.A.No.258/2004, R.A.No.263/2004 and R.A.No.273/2004. However, R.A.No.264/2004 came to be allowed and relief of permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiff and against both the defendants passed in O.S.No.1535/1993 came to be set aside and suit O.S.No.1535/1993 came to be dismissed.
6. Sole defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1245/1992 insofar as granting relief of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs has challenged the same in RSA No.1524/2007. Second defendant being aggrieved by rejection of counter claim sought for in O.S.No.1535/1993, which came to be confirmed in R.A.No.264/2004 has filed RSA No.1525/2007. Hence, these two appeals are taken up together for consideration.
7. I have heard the arguments of Sri.
Manjunath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri. D. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
8. It is the contention of Sri. Manjunath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for appellant in both the appeals that entire approach of both the Courts is manifestly illegal, inasmuch as, contentions raised by the appellant including oral and documentary evidence tendered on behalf of appellant, has not been considered in proper perspective and as such, judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in rejecting the counter claim and granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He would submit that trial Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that counter claim was barred by limitation and the principle underlying under Order 8 Rule 6 of CPC has not been considered in proper perspective. It is also the contention of Sri.Manjunath Hegde that original plaintiff was a trespasser and without any title and as such trial Court could not have decreed the suit. He would draw the attention of the Court to the resolution dated 16.08.1987 passed by town municipality directing the removal of name of plaintiff from the records on the ground that she did not possess any title to the property and plaintiff had utterly failed to prove her ownership of the suit property. Hence, counter claim ought to have been allowed. He would also submit that Courts below erred in arriving at a conclusion that plaintiff and her legal heirs are in possession of property for more than 30 years and as such claim of defendant (Channabasappa) cannot be entertained though cogent evidence was available before the courts below.
13. He would submit that property bearing No.53 measuring 36’ x 20’ was granted in favour of Sri.Sharma Sab and it was purchased by the defendant Sri Channabasappa under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1987 and as such Courts below ought to have noted that plaintiff was a trespasser and she had no title. He would submit that plaintiff had failed to prove lawful possession of property in question and as such decreeing the suit for relief of permanent injunction that too partly, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Hence, he prays for allowing both the appeals by answering the substantial question of law in favour of appeals.
14. Per contra, Sri. D.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents (plaintiffs) in both the appeals would support the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and would contend finding recorded by both the Courts are all question of facts and even otherwise, question of law formulated by this Court deserves to be answered in favour of respondents/plaintiffs in the background of oral and documentary evidence tendered by plaintiffs. Hence, he prays for dismissal of both the appeals.
RE. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.1:
15. As already noticed hereinabove in both the suits i.e., O.S.No.1245/1992 as well as O.S.No.1535/1993 original plaintiff claimed the relief of permanent injunction as well as for a declaration to declare that resolution dated 05.01.1993 is illegal and unlawful. Admittedly, suit for declaration sought for by the original plaintiff against first defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993 i.e., against municipality came to be dismissed. Hence, legal heirs of the original plaintiff had filed an appeal in R.A.No.273/2004, which came to be dismissed and legal heirs of deceased plaintiff have not preferred or filed second appeal challenging the same. Thus, judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1535/1993 as affirmed in R.A.No.273/2004 has become final. Likewise, judgment and decree of trial Court for grant of permanent injunction in respect of vacant site situated in the suit schedule property measuring to an extent of 17½’ x 20’, which was not granted by trial Court had been challenged by the legal heirs of original plaintiff in R.A.No.258/2004 came to be dismissed, which is not under challenge by the legal heirs of original plaintiff and thus, judgment and decree passed in R.A.Nos.258/2004 and 273/2004 has attained finality.
16. RSA No.1524/2007 which has been filed by the sole defendant in O.S.No.1245/1992 insofar as decreeing suit of plaintiff partly i.e., to an extent of 18½’ x 20’ is concerned, when examined in the background of findings recorded by the trial Court and in the background of contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, it would emerge therefrom that issue No.1, which had been framed, has been partly answered in the affirmative.
It was the specific case of plaintiff before the Courts below that she was granted suit schedule property (measuring East to West 36 feet and North to South 20 feet) by the Town Municipality, Chitradurga. She also claimed that she had paid the development charges and became the owner of suit property and continued in possession as such. Exs.P-1 and P-2- assessment extract of the property in question as well as khatha extract as evidenced would demonstrate that plaintiff was in possession to an extent of 18½’ x 20’. Thus, prima facie possession to an extent of 18½’ x 20’ was proved by the plaintiff. In this background, learned trial Judge arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property only to an extent measuring 18½’ x 20’.
17. Lower appellate Court while re- appreciating the entire evidence has noticed that on the one hand plaintiff claimed that 30 years prior to the filing of suit she has been in possession of suit property as against the claim of defendant (Channabasappa) that plaintiff had trespassed into the suit property in the year 1992 and has examined as to the length of possession of suit schedule property or portion of it by plaintiff. In this background, evidence tendered by both parties i.e., oral and documentary has been evaluated. Ex.P-16- commencement certificate produced by the plaintiff would establish the year of construction of building. No doubt it would disclose plaintiff had constructed the building in the year 1992 and this would support the contention of defendant, but same has not been accepted by the lower appellate Court. In the light of admission elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiff by defendant himself, which discloses that plaintiff was in possession of the built area from the year 1964 by putting up a thatched shed initially and in the year 1992 having constructed a mangalore tiled roof house. Her stand is also supported by independent witnesses namely, P.W.2 and P.W.3-Mr. Syed Alimulla and Srinivasa respectively, who were at an undisputed point of time residing in the close vicinity of the suit property. Both these witnesses have been residing about 100 to 150 feet away from the suit property. In their cross-examination it has been elicited that daughters of the deceased plaintiff have been running Anganwadi in the said property. In fact, electoral extract – Ex.P-15 produced by the plaintiff discloses that plaintiff had exercised her franchise from the suit schedule property. At the same time, defendant who entered the witness box has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not aware as to actual date the plaintiff had been residing in the suit property. Thus, appellate Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that contention of defendant about plaintiff having trespassed into suit property and constructed dwelling house in the year 1992, is to be rejected. Learned appellate Judge has recorded following finding of fact at paragraph 17 of the judgment:
“17. Defendant who has contended xxxx prior to 1992. It is not out of context to mention here that when the plaintiff contended that she has been residing in a portion of suit property since 30 to 35 years, it was necessary for the defendant to examine his vendor to show that he was put in possession of the entire site measuring 36’ x 20’. In fact, the defendant has admitted in his cross examination that there was dilapidated house in the site purchased by him. He has also admitted that he did not reside in the said house. He has not deposed as to who was residing in the said house. Careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record shows that it was the plaintiff who had constructed the dwelling house in a portion of suit property long ago and she has been residing in the said dwelling house. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defendant or his vender were in possession of a portion of 18½’ x 20’ (constructed portion) 12 years prior to the suit in O.S.No.1245/1992. The learned counsel for the Channabasappa xxxxx facts of the present case.”
18. In that view of the matter, substantial question of law No.1 is answered i.e., against appellant and in favour of respondents.
RE: SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.2:
19. I have already noticed herein above that original plaintiff had filed two suits and as such, it is not repeated herein as it would be burdening this judgment. To put it differently, issue involved for answering this substantial question of law relates to the counter claim filed by defendant having been rejected. Thus, incidental question which would arise for consideration would be - in which suit out of two suits i.e., O.S.No.1245/1992 or O.S.No.1535/1993, issue of counter claim had been raised and answered? The question can be laid to rest by looking into the issues framed in O.S.No.1535/1993 and issue Nos.5 & 7 relates to the same and at the cost of repetition, it is extracted herein below:
“5) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the plaintiff has illegally occupied and has put up the temporary shed unauthorisedly in an area of 18 ½ ‘ x 21’ in the suit property belonging to him and that the plaintiff is a trespasser?
7) Whether the defendant No.2 is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and possession as prayed?”
20. It is apt and appropriate to note at this juncture that it is only in O.S.No.1535/1993, second defendant (Sri Channabasappa) who is the appellant in R.S.A.No.1525/2007 has sought for the relief of mandatory injunction and has sought for a direction to the plaintiff to demolish the alleged temporary shed, vacate and hand over the encroached area to the possession of the defendant. It is also to be noted that written statement so filed is under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and not under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. In fact, additional written statement which was filed on 18.09.1997 also does not reflect that written statement was filed under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. However, original records of the trial Court would disclose that on 11.08.1999 Court fee of Rs.25/- has been paid by defendant valuing the claim for mandatory injunction under Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958. It is the specific case of the defendant that he had purchased the property bearing No.53, measuring 36’ x 20’ from Sri Sharmasab under a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1987 for a total consideration of Rs.25,000/- and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he has paid taxes to the municipality. It was also contended that plaintiff had trespassed into portion of the suit property in an area measuring 18½’ x 20’ and she had illegally put up construction.
21. Learned trial Judge, who by common judgment and decree disposed of both the suits, has taken judicial note of the fact that O.S.No.1245/1992 came to be filed on 22.09.1992 and second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993 who was the sole defendant in O.S.No.1245/1992 had appeared in the said suit and contested the matter and in the said suit, defendant had appeared through the counsel on 08.10.1992 and had also filed written statement on 07.10.1993 and was aware of the fact that plaintiff having asserted to be in possession of the suit property to an extent of 18 ½ ‘ x 21’. In other words, defendant was aware as on 08.10.1992 when he entered appearance in O.S.No.1245/1992 that plaintiff had asserted her possession to the suit property and also the fact that she had contended that she had put up construction in an area of 18½ x 20’ in the suit schedule property. In this background, learned trial Judge has arrived at a conclusion that written statement filed in O.S.No.1535/1993 by him on 18.09.1997 was more than 5 years and on account of suit for mandatory injunction ought to have been filed within 5 years of the date of knowledge of the trespassers, yet defendant sought for counter claim by way of mandatory injunction after lapse of 5 years and as such, claim was time barred.
22. Lower appellate Court while re- appreciating entire evidence on said issue had formulated point No.4 in this regard for its consideration and it reads thus:
“Whether trial Court is justified in rejecting the counter claim made by defendant Channabasappa?”
For answering the above formulated point, the lower appellate Court has also clubbed point No.2 formulated by it which relates to possession of portion measuring 18 ½’ x 20’ out of suit property claimed by the plaintiff together for its adjudication and in this background, it has arrived at a conclusion that claim of the defendant about plaintiff having trespassed into suit property in the year 1992 as contended in the written statement was found to be false in the teeth of defendant’s evidence and as such it is held that neither defendant nor his vendor were in possession of 18½’ x 20’ – 12 years prior to the suit i.e., O.S.No.1245/1992. In this background, it has arrived at a conclusion that suit in question was hopelessly barred by limitation.
23. Though Mr.Manjunath Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for appellant has canvassed that Courts below have rejected the counter claim on the ground that it was not maintainable, this Court is not inclined to accept said contention inasmuch as, a plain reading of judgment of both the Courts would disclose that counter claim has not been dismissed on the ground of same not being maintainable but on the ground that claim was time barred. Though trial Court has recorded a finding that written statement is filed with counter claim on 18.09.1997 which is an erroneous finding as rightly contended by Sri.Hegde, inasmuch as, records would disclose that in O.S.No.1535/1993, second defendant filed written statement on 18.11.1996 and not on 18.09.1997. This is also borne out by order sheet of the trial Court. In fact, learned trial Judge has endorsed on the original written statement the date of filing as 18.11.1996, as such, finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to facts and records and to that extent, Mr.Manjunath Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for appellant is correct and justified.
24. It is in the above background, contention which came to be raised before the appellate Court as counter claim not being barred by time has been examined by the lower appellate Court as noticed herein above and found on facts that even accepting contention of the defendant that counter claim was maintainable, the said claim was held to be time barred since possession of the suit of an immovable property or in interest therein based on title could be claimed within 12 years when the possession of defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff vide Entry No.65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence found that defendant or his vendor were never in possession of portion of property measuring 18½’x20’ (constructed portion) 12 years prior to filing of O.S.No.1245/1992 and as such, has rightly rejected the claim for relief of mandatory injunction which was sought for by the second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that substantial question of law formulated herein above deserves to be answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the plaintiff and against second defendant in O.S.No.1535/1993.
25. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
JUDGMENT (i) RSA Nos.1524/2007 and 1525/2007 are dismissed (ii) Judgment and decree dated 07.02.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Chitradurga in R.A.Nos.263/2004 and 264/2004 respectively confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1999 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Chitradurga in O.S.Nos.1245/1992 and 1535/1993 respectively are hereby confirmed.
(iii) Costs made easy.
DR/sp SD/- JUDGE