1989 (8) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in its possession since then. According to the plaintiff-respondents, the aforementioned G.O. was cancelled and the land was settled with Guttahalli Hanumaiah in 1929 under G.O. No. 3540, which, however, has not been produced in the case. Guttahalli Hanumaiah remained in possession till 1937 when he died. After his death his widow the plaintiff No. 2 came in possession and continued till 1969 when an area of 2.02 acres was would to the plaintiff No. 1. In 1970 there was an agreement of sale by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 for the sale of the remaining land also for a total sum of ₹ 20,000/- out of which ₹ 10,000/- is said to have been paid. On 8.8.1973 the plaintiff got his name entered in the revenue re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he nature of a suit the entire plaint has to be read and not merely the relief portion, and the plaint in the present case does not leave any manner of doubt that the suit has been filed for establishing the title of the plaintiffs and on that basis getting an injunction against the appellant Corporation. The court fee payable on the plaint has also to be assessed accordingly. It follows that the appellant's objection that the suit is not maintainable has to be rejected. The additional Civil Judge, who heard the appeal from the judgment of the trial court, examined the question of plaintiffs' title and rejected their case. The question of possession was also separately taken up, and it was found that the plaintiffs had failed to pro....