AKKAMMA Vs. VEMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us are the plaintiffs in a suit instituted in the year 1987 by their predecessor Arakeri Abbaiah claiming for declaration of ownership of certain immovable property comprising of 10.54 guntas situated in Vibhuthipura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Relief was also claimed in that suit in the form of injunction directing the defendants therein not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit­property. On his death, Arakeri Abbaiah's legal representatives were brought on record. In this judgment, we shall refer to Arakeri Abbaiah as the original plaintiff. He was the son­in­law of the first defendant in the suit­ Muniyappa. Both the defendants have passed away subsequently and their legal representatives are on record. The original second defendant was the son of the first defendant at the time the suit was instituted. Prior to this suit, another suit was filed by the original plaintiff involving broadly the same immovable property in the year 1982. We shall discuss about the said suit later in this judgment and the two suits shall be henceforth referred to by their years of institution, i.e. 1982 suit and 1987 suit respectively. The case of the original plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he had purchased the suit land from its erstwhile owner, Papaiah under a registered sale deed dtd. 29/5/1972. The total area of the land that the original plaintiff claimed to have had purchased was 1 acre 15 guntas and the disputed property forms part of that block of land. In the plaint, the original plaintiff's case was that he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit land ever since the date of purchase.

(2.) The subject­suit, i.e. the 1987 suit was founded, inter­alia, on the allegation that the defendants were making attempts to interfere with the original plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It was specifically alleged that on 15/2/1987 the defendants interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. It has also been alleged in the plaint that attempt to trespass into the suit scheduled property was repeated by the defendants on 25/2/1987. In the 1987 suit, as we have already indicated, reliefs claimed included declaration to the effect that the original plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit land and prayer was also made for permanent injunction.

(3.) The original plaintiff had instituted the earlier suit in the Court of XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore City. The 1982 suit was for perpetual injunction, and the claim for injunctive relief was similar to that asked for in the 1987 suit though not on the same allegation of interference. The earlier suit was registered as O.S. No. 3029/82. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish his lawful possession. The decision of the Trial Court in the 1982 suit was appealed against by the predecessor of the present appellants, but that appeal was also dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka on 25/11/1986. It was thereafter the suit, from which the present appeal arises, was instituted showing threats of dispossession on the aforesaid two dates. This suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement and they had set up title for themselves. The defendants raised the plea of purchase of the suit land in benami transaction, and the first defendant claimed to be the real owner of the suit land. The said suit was dismissed on 7/11/1997. It has, however, been stated in the list of dates contained in the paperbook that the Trial Court did not accept the defendants' plea of benami transaction.