IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT JEWARGI

Present:

Sri. Venkanna Basappa Hosamani,

B.Com., L.L.B. (Spl)
Civil Judge & JMFC, Jewargi

Dated this the 8th day of February 2016.

Original Suit No. 114/2011

PLAINTIFFS:

1) Abdul Rashid since deceased

through Lrs.
A) Bilqees Begum W/o Late Abdul
Rasheed Inamdar, Age: 55 years,
Occ: Household R/o village Kellur,
Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.
B) Mohd Irfan S/o Late Abdul Rasheed
Inamdar, Age: 30 years, Occ:
Business, R/o village Kellur, Tq.
Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.
C) Mohd Imran S/o Late Abdul
Rasheed Inamdar, Age: 30 years,
Occ: Business, R/o village Kellur,
Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.
D) Nazmeen Sultana W/o Mohd Maula
Hussain D/o Late Abdul Rasheed
Inamdar, Age: 26 years, Occ:
Household R/o Sindmoor, Tq. &
Dist. Raichure.
E) Mohd Nawaz S/o Late Abdul
Rasheed Inamdar, Age: 25 years,
Occ: Business, R/o village Kellur,
Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.
F) Mohd Aejaz S/o Late Abdul Rasheed
Inamdar, Age: 24 years, Occ: Govt.
servant, R/o village Kellur, Tq.
Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.
G) Sameena Sultana D/o Late Abdul
Rasheed Inamdar, Age: 25 years,
Occ: Business, R/o village Kellur,
Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.
 2 O.S.No.114/2011

2) Mohd. Isaq S/o Mohd. Gouse, Age:

55 years, Occ: Agriculture.
3) Shaik Bowoddin S/o Mohd. Gouse,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
4) Mohd. Gouse S/o. Abdul Razak,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture.
5) Abdul Gafoor S/o Abdul Razak, Age:
35 years, Occ: Agriculture.
All R/o Kellur, Tq. Jewargi, Dist.
Gulbarga.

(By Sri. Syed Fayazuddin, advocate)

V/s.

DEFENDANTS:

1) Shamshoddin S/o Late Mohammed

Hussasinsab Gundgurti, Age: 52
years, Occ: Business, R/o
Jewargi(B), Tq. Jewargi, Dist.
Gulbarga.
2) Gulam Mohammed S/o Late
Mohammed Hussain Gundgurti,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o
Chigaralli village, Tq. Jewargi, Dist.
Gulbarga.
3) Mustak Hussain S/o Late
Mohammed Hussain Gundgurti,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Govt. servant,
R/o Sericulture Office, Gulbarga.
4) Mohd. Isaq S/o Late Mohammed
Hussainsab Gundgurti, Age: 35
years, Occ: Business, R/o Jewargi,
Dist. Gulbarga.
5) Taher S/o Mohd. Usman @ Babu,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Business. R/o.
Opp. New Bus stand, Jewargi, Dist.
Gulbarga.

(By Sri. B.Basanna, advocate)

 3 O.S.No.114/2011

Date of institution : 10-08-2011

Nature of the suit. : Perpetual

Injunction.

Date of commencement of recording

of the evidence : 07-06-2012

Date on which the Judgment is

pronounced. : 08-02-2016

Total Duration. : Years/Months/Days/

04 05 28

(Venkanna Basappa Hosamani)

Civil Judge & JMFC,
Jewargi.

-o0o-
 4 O.S.No.114/2011

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the

defendants for seeking Permanent Injunction

restraining the defendants not to interfere into the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs

over the suit properties bearing Sy.No.61 measuring

18 acres 22 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.65

measuring 32 acres 33 guntas situated at Kellur

village, Tq. Jewargi, Dist. Gulbarga.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under;

That the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of the

suit properties, same have been acquired from their

ancestors through succession. The names of plaintiffs

have entered into the record of rights as a owners and

possessors, thus the plaintiffs are the owners and

possessors of the suit properties and they are enjoying

the same without obstruction or interference of the

others including defendants. The defendants who are

no way concerned to the suit properties and neither

they are connected with the previous owners of the

suit properties trying to cause hindrance to the

plaintiffs with an ulterior motive.

 5 O.S.No.114/2011

3. The defendants are trying to grab the suit properties

of the plaintiffs with a help of anti-social elements and

they have made up their mind to dispossess the

plaintiffs from the suit properties taking undue

advantage of poverty of the plaintiffs. On 27-07-2011

defendants were tried to obstruct and dispossess the

plaintiffs from the suit properties. Hence, there is

cause of action to plaintiffs to file the present suit and

they prayed for decree the suit.

4. After service of summons, defendants appeared

through their counsel and filed written statement and

contended that, defendants No.1 to 4 are natural sons

of one Smt. Dawalbee, defendant No.5 is son of

deceased Mohammad Yaseen who was natural son of

Smt. Dawalbee. The plaintiffs are natural sons of

deceased Mohammad Gouse S/o Mohammad

Yaseensab. The plaintiffs and defendants are blood

relatives to each other. Plaintiffs intentionally hide the

relationship with the defendants and properties. The

suit properties have been granted to the grandfather

of plaintiffs. During the lifetime of late Yaseensab he

has orally gifted 20 acres land in Sy.No.61 and 65,

 6 O.S.No.114/2011

towards east side i.e., left side of the road which

passes from Gulbarga-Shahapur in favour of his

natural daughter Smt. Dawalbee and said Smt.

Dawalbee accepted his oral gift. Since from the date

of oral gift Smt. Dawalbee was in possession of the

said land. Defendants No.1 to 5 are natural sons of

Smt. Dawalbee and defendants No.1 to 5 are in actual

possession of the suit properties to the extent of 20

acres since from time. The elder son of Smt.

Dawalbee has paid Rs.10,000/- towards premium

amount in respect of granted land in Sy.No.61, 65 and

84 of Kellur village. After these incidents the plaintiffs

admitted the suit properties gifted by the grandfather

voluntarily executed an agreement in declaration from

27-06-1998 wherein repeated the wish of late

Yaseensab and signed by the plaintiffs before 22

witnesses who are permanent resident of Kellur

village. On 16-07-2010 defendants No.1 to 5 filed an

application for spot inspection to Tahasildar Jewargi

and accordingly revenue inspector conducted the spot

inspection and reported the same on 24-07-2010 by

confirming the possession of defendants. On the basis

of said agreement, defendants filed an application for

 7 O.S.No.114/2011

phodi survey. The survey authority has issued notice

to the plaintiffs which were duly served on the

plaintiffs and purposely they have been absent at the

time of survey work.

5. Finally, defendants have filed the application U/Sec.

128 and 129 of K.L.R. Act for effecting the mutation on

the basis of agreement on 17-03-2011. Now the

plaintiffs have created the false story and filed the

false suit. Hence, defendants have prayed for

dismissal of the suit with costs.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the both parties my

learned predecessor-in-office has framed the

following ;

ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove
their peaceful possession and
enjoyment over the suit
schedule properties?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove
the interference from the
defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled for the reliefs
claimed in this suit?
4. What order or decree?

7. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff

No.3 Shaik Bowoddin S/o Mohammad Gouse himself

 8 O.S.No.114/2011

examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as

Ex.P.1 to 16. Defendant No.4 Mohammad Isaq S/o

Late Mohammed Husssainsab himself examined as

DW-1 and got examined three witnesses by name Sri.

Bawavantraya, Sri. Ladlesab and Sri. Sanganna as DW-

2 to 4 and got marked the documents as Ex.D.1 to 15.

8. Heard the arguments of Sri. Syed Fayazuddin advocate

for plaintiffs and Sri. Aziz Doddamani advocate for

defendants and examined the materials placed on

records.

9. During the pendency of this suit, plaintiff No.1 Sri.

Abdul Rashid was died, hence his LRs’ have been

taken on record as plaintiffs No.1(A) to (G).

10. My answers to the above issues are as under:

Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

11. ISSUE NO. 1:- It is the specific case of the plaintiffs is

that, suit properties are their ancestral properties

 9 O.S.No.114/2011

they have acquired the suit properties through

succession and their names are appearing in the

record of rights. The defendants without having any

right, title or interest over the suit properties trying to

grab the properties of the plaintiffs with help of anti-

social elements. Hence, they prayed for decree the

suit.

12. It is the specific case of the defendants is that, 20

acres land has been given to their mother through oral

gift, since then they have in possession of the said 20

acres landed property. The plaintiffs have admitted

the possession of the defendants and earlier

transaction. Hence, they have voluntarily executed

the agreement in form of declaration on 27-06-1998 in

the present of 22 witnesses of Kellur village. Now with

malafide intention plaintiffs have created the false

story and filed the present suit. Hence, they prayed for

dismissal of the suit.

13. As per sec. 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, whoever

desires any court to give judgement as to any legal

right or liability dependent on the existence of facts

 10 O.S.No.114/2011

which he asserts must prove that those facts exists.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any

fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that

person. In the present case on hand burden of proof

lies on the plaintiffs to prove their case.

14. P.W.1 and DW-1 were reiterated their pleadings in their

respective examination-in-chief filed by way of

affidavit U/O 18 Rule 4 of CPC.

15. Ex.P.1 to 7 are record of rights pertaining to Sy.No.61

of the Kellur village, on the perusal of the same name

of plaintiff No.1,2 ,4 and 5 are appearing as a

cultivator and possessor at column No.9 and 12/2.

Ex.P.8 to 15 are record of rights of Sy.No.65 of Kellur

village, on the perusal of the same name of plaintiff

No.1 to 5 are appearing as a cultivator and possessor

at column No.9 and 12/2. Ex.P.16 is record of right

pertaining to Sy.No.61. On the perusal of the same, 18

acres 22 guntas is standing in the name of plaintiffs, 4

acres standing inthe name of Shamshad Begum, 2

acres standing in the name of Mahemoona Begum and

6 acres 20 guntas standing in the name of Smt. Fatima

 11 O.S.No.114/2011

Begum. The Ex.P.1 to 16 not discloses the name of

defendants or their mother’s name.

16. It is admitted fact is that, land in Sy.No.61 and 65 are

granted in favour of one Mohammad Yaseen S/o

Sheikh on 29-04-1982 Tahasildar/Special Land Reforms

Jewargi. It is also admitted fact is that, name of

plaintiffs mutated to the suit properties by virtue of

succession. It is also admitted fact is that, now the suit

properties are standing in the name of plaintiffs. There

is no dispute regarding ownership of the plaintiffs over

the suit properties.

17. But it is denied by the defendants is that, plaintiffs are

not in possession of the suit properties inspite of that,

they have filed the false suit. On the other hand,

defendants claiming the ownership and possession of

20 acres land in suit survey number, as said property

has been acquired by their mother by virtue of oral gift

given by their grandfather. This fact has to be proved

by defendants as the heavy burden shifted on the

defendants as per 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

 12 O.S.No.114/2011

18. The documents furnished by the plaintiffs i.e., record

of rights of the suit properties discloses that, name of

the plaintiffs have been mutated to the suit properties

by virtue of succession. As per sec. 133 of the K.L.R.

Act, 1964 Court can presume that, entries made in the

record of rights are holds good, unless and until

substitute entries furnished. In the present case on

hand, the record of rights i.e., Ex.P.1 to 16 are

discloses the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit

properties. The defendants have not furnished

rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the Ex.P.1 to 16. The

plaintiffs admitted that, they have sold some portion

of land in Sy.No.61 and they are in possession of only

to the extent of 18 acres 22 guntas in the said survey

number.

19. The defendants contended in their written statement

is that, in year 1998 plaintiffs No.1 to 5 had executed

an agreement in form of declaration in the present of

eminent persons of village Kellur. The said document

has been got marked by the defendants as Ex.D.15.

The defendants in their written statement as well as in

examination-in-chief of DW-1 contended that,

 13 O.S.No.114/2011

grandfather of the plaintiffs had orally gifted the 20

acres land in the suit properties to the mother of

defendants. If that is so, the defendants ought to

have prove the oral gift. The defendants on the other

hand, they have relying the Ex.D.15. The recital of the

Ex.D.15 not discloses that, father of the Smt.

Dawalbee W/o Hussainsab has not gifted the 20 acres

land. It is the duty of the defendants to prove that, 20

acres land has been acquired by their mother Smt.

Dawalbee by virtue of oral gift. The defendants have

not furnished any material evidence to prove that, 20

acres land has been acquired by their mother through

oral gift. In the absence of such material evidence, it

cannot be held that, defendants mother had acquired

the 20 acres land through oral gift. Hence, I am of the

opinion that, defendants have failed to prove the oral

gift of 20 acres land as contended by themselves in

their written statement.

20. Ex.D.15 is agreement (PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ) the defendants have

got marked the said document but mere marking of

the said document is not sufficient it has to be proved

by relevant and cogent evidence. Mere marking of the

 14 O.S.No.114/2011

document not dispense the proof. The defendants

ought to have prove the said document by sufficient

and reliable evidence. DW-2 to 4 in their examination–

in-chief at para No.4 contended that, plaintiffs No.1 to

5 executed the document on 17-06-1998 in favour of

defendants by admitting the oral gift with regard to

the part of the suit properties to the extent of 20 acres

towards eastern side.

21. At this stage I intend to quote some portion of Ex.D.15

which is runs thus;

“ ...............£ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀÇ«ðPÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ

AiÀiÁ¹Ã£À¸Á§ E£ÁªÀÄzÁgÀ ¸ÁB eÉêÀVð EªÀgÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ
zÁªÀ®© UÀAqÀ ºÀĸÉãÀ¸Á§ UÀÄ£ÀßUÀÄwð PÉ®ÆègÀ
EªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉ®ÆègÀ UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ
¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¬ÄzÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. CzÀPÁÌV £ÀªÀÄä
vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀZÀ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ F 20 JPÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ªÉƪÀÄäPÀ̼ÀÄ wêÀiÁð£À
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝêÉ.......”

22. On the plain reading of above quoted recital, it is not

discloses that, Yaseensab Inamdar has orally gifted the

20 acres land in Sy.No.61 and 65 to the mother of

defendants. If really there was a oral gift and same

was acted upon, what was the necessary for

defendants to obtained the Ex.D.15 from the plaintiffs

 15 O.S.No.114/2011

No.1 to 5. The Ex.D.15 not discloses that, Yaseensab

was orally gifted in the presence of witnesses. But

Ex.D.15 discloses that, the plaintiffs have full filling the

promise made by their grandfather. But the present

plaintiffs have denied the Ex.D.15 in toto.

23. If really defendants have got 20 acres land in the suit

survey numbers in the year 1998 through Ex.D.15,

why the defendants have not made an effort to get

mutated their mother’s name or their name basing on

the Ex.D.15 at earliest point of time. This conduct of

the defendants also going to shows that, Ex.D.15 is

not executed by the plaintiffs on 17-06-1998. The

defendants have not taken any steps for mutating

their names to the 20 acres land till 2010-11. The

defendants have kept quite near about 12 years. If

really they have acquired the 20 acres land, they

ought to have take proper steps for mutating their

names at earliest point of time.

24. The learned counsel for the, plaintiffs has relied the
judgment of High Court of Karnataka Bangalore RSA
No.2082 of 2010 (INJ) (Vittal Shetty and another
Vs. Smt. Kamala Shedty) It has been held that,
 16 O.S.No.114/2011

15. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, the observations of the Apex Court in
‘ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v P. BUCHI
REDDY is apposite.
“21. To summarize, the position in regard to
suits for prohibitory injunction relating to
immovable property is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiffs
title and he does not have possession, a
suit for declaration and possession, with
or without a consequential injunction, is
the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is
not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is
out of possession, he has to sue for
possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with the plaintiff’s lawful
possession or threat of dispossession, it
is sufficient to sue for an injunction
simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is
concerned only with possession,
normally the issue of title will not be
directly and substantially in issue. The
prayer for injunction will be decided with
reference to the finding on possession.
But in cases where de jure possession
has to be established on the basis of title
to the property, as in the case of vacant
sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially arise for consideration, as
without a finding thereon, it will not be
possible to decide the issue of
possession.
(c)But a finding on title cannot be recorded
in suit for injunction, unless there are
necessary pleadings and appropriate
issue regarding title ([either specific, or
implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar
(2005) 6 SCC 202]). Where the
averments regarding title are absent in a
plaint and where there is no issue
relating to title, the court will not
 17 O.S.No.114/2011

investigate or examine or render a

finding on a question of title, in a suit for
injunction. Even where there are
necessary pleadings and issue, if the
matter involves complicated questions of
fact and law relating to title, the court
will relegate the parties to the remedy
by way of comprehensive suit for
declaration of title, instead of deciding
the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings
regarding title, and appropriate issue
relating to the title on which parties lead
evidence, if the matter involved is
simple and straightforward, the court
may decide upon the issue regarding
title, even in a suit for injunction. But
such cases, are the exception to the
normal rule that question of title will not
be decided in suits for injunction. But
persons having clear title and possession
suing for injunction, should not be driven
to the costlier and more cumbersome
remedy of a suit for declaration, merely
because some meddler vexatiously or
wrongfully makes a claim or tries to
encroach upon his property. The court
should use its discretion carefully to
identify cases where it will enquire into
title and cases where it will refer to the
plaintiff to a more comprehensive
declaratory suit, depending upon the
facts of the case.”

16. So also the observations of the Apex

Court in’ RAMJI RAI v. JAGDISH MALLAH’
in the circumstances is apposite.
“10. ........ In the case of a permanent
injunction based on protection of
possessory title in which the plaintiff
alleges that he is in possession, and that
his possession is being threatened by the
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to sue for
mere injunction without adding a prayer for
 18 O.S.No.114/2011

declaration of his right. (See Mulla’s Indian

Contract and Specific Relief Acts, 12 th Edn.,
p. 2815)

17. In ‘RAME GOUWA v. M.VARADAPPA

the Apex Court observed thus;
“12. ............................ In Fakirbai
Bhagwandas v. Maganlal Haribai (AIR 1951
Bom 380) a Division Bench speak through
Bhagwati, J. (as his Lordship then was) and
held that it is not necessary for the person
claiming injunction to prove his title to the
suit land. It would suffice if he proves that
he was in lawful possession of the same
and that his possession was invaded or
threatened to be invaded by a person who
has no title thereof. We respectfully agree
with the view to taken..........”

25. In the light of the above quoted judgment of Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka I am of the opinion that,

plaintiffs ownership is not denied by the defendants,

hence there is no need to plaintiffs to seek the a relief

of declaration of their ownership over the suit

properties. In the present case on hand, as per

plaintiffs there is a interference with their lawful

possession and threat of dispossession by the

defendants. Hence, it is sufficient to sue for an

injunction simpliciter. On the basis of Ex.P.1 to 16 and

Ex.D10 I am of the opinion that, plaintiffs are in

possession of the suit properties as on the date of the

 19 O.S.No.114/2011

suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the

Affirmative.

26. ISSUE No.2: The averments made in the written

statement as well as evidence of DW-1 to 4 and

Ex.D.15 itself is sufficient to held that, defendants are

trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit

properties. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the

defendants have tried to interfere and dispossess the

plaintiffs from the suit properties. Hence, I held Issue

No.2 in the Affirmative.

27. ISSUE No.3 : At the time of the arguments the

learned counsel for the defendants Sri. Aziz

Doddamani advocate argued that, the plaintiffs have

not approached the court with clean had as they were

denied the relationship with defendants. Further he

argued that, the plaintiffs have sold the some portion

of property of Sy.No.61 inspite of that, they have

shown the boundaries including sold out property,

hence suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Further

he has argued that, plaintiffs and defendants are

tenants in common, hence plaintiffs cannot seek the

 20 O.S.No.114/2011

injunction against the defendants as defendants are

also having share in the suit properties.

28. On the other hand the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs argued that, defendants have not pleaded

regarding they are common tenant of the suit land and

they are having share in the suit properties. Hence,

he requested the court not to consider the new plea

raised in argument by the counsel for the defendants.

29. In the absence of pleadings and evidence, argument

canvassed by the counsel for the defendants

regarding tenant in common and defendants are

having share in the suit properties it is not a

considerable one. If really plaintiffs and defendants

are tenant in common or sharers of the suit properties,

the defendants are liberty to file comprehensive suit

for declaration of their share or partition or any other

relief in accordance with law. In normal rule question

of title or partition will not be decided in the suits of

bear injunction.
 21 O.S.No.114/2011

30. DW-1 in his cross-examination at page No.8 deposed

that, after getting the gift of 20 acres land Smt.

Dawalbee had given application to the Tahasil office

for mutating her name to the said property. If really

Smt. Dawalbee had filed an application for mutating

her name to Tahasil office, defendants ought to have

furnish the copy of the said application by obtaining

the same by Tahasil office. And one more thing is if

really Smt. Dawalbee had filed an application for

mutating her name to Tahasil office, what the revenue

officials have taken steps on the said application has

been not furnished by the defendants. If really Smt.

Dawalbee had filed an application for mutating her

name to Tahasil office, what was the necessary for

defendants to get reduce the Ex.D.15. DW-1 in his

cross-examination admitted that, plaintiffs have sold

some portion of suit property to the Sri. Syed

Tanaweer in the year 2009. And further deposed that,

they have not objected at the time of sale. If really

defendants are in possession of 20 acres land or they

are having right over the suit properties, they ought

to have challenge the said sale. The silence of the

defendants itself is going to shows that, plaintiffs are

 22 O.S.No.114/2011

having right over the suit properties. Hence, they

have alienated the some portion of suit property to

others.

31. In view of the above discussion and my answer to the

Issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, it is just and

necessary to protect the possession of the plaintiffs

over the suit properties by restraining the defendants

by granting the injunction order as per Sec. 38 of the

Specific Relief Act. Hence, plaintiffs are entitled as

relief sought for. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in

the Affirmative.

23. ISSUE NO.4: In view of the above discussion and my

answers to the above issues, suit of the plaintiffs is

deserves to be decreed. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following;

ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is
decreed with costs.
The defendants and
their agents or anybody
claiming through them are
permanently restrained
from interfering into the
 23 O.S.No.114/2011

possession of the plaintiffs

over the suit properties as
described in plaint para
No.2

Draw decree
accordingly.

(Dictated to Stenographer directly on Computer, typed by him and

corrected and then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 8th day of February 2016.)

(Venkanna Basappa Hosamani)

Civil Judge & JMFC,
Jewargi.

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:

PW-1: Shaik Bowoddin S/o Mohd. Gouse.

List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:

Ex.P.1 to 7: Record of rights of Sy.No.61.
Ex.P.8 to 14: Record of rights of Sy.No.65.
Ex.P.15 and 16: Record of rights.

List of witnesses examined for defendants:

DW.1. Mohd. Isaq S/o Late Mohammed Hussain sab.
DW.2. Basawantraya S/o Shivappa Desai.
DW.3. Ladlesab S/o Dastagirsab Ustad.
DW.4. Sanganna S/o Sahebgouda Desai.

List of documents exhibited for defendants:

Ex.D.1. Certified copy of sale deed.
Ex.D.2. Certified copy of panchanama.
Ex.D.3. Certified copy of statement of villagers.
Ex.D.4 . Certified copy of statement.
Ex.D.5. Certified copy of notice.
Ex.D.6. Copy of challan.
 24 O.S.No.114/2011

Ex.D.7. Tax paid receipt.

Ex.D.8. Copy of family tree.
Ex.D.9. Certified copy of application.
Ex.D.10 and 11. Certified copy of record of rights.
Ex.D.12 to 14. Certified copies of sale deeds.
Ex.D.15. Copy of agreement deed.
Ex.D.15(a): Signature of DW-2.
Ex.D.15(b) : Signature of DW-3

(Venkanna Basappa Hosamani)

Civil Judge & JMFC,
Jewargi.