V.N. MURTHY Vs. P. KAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred from the judgment and decree dated 2nd of Jan., 1997 passed by the 1st Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit Number 98 of 1983, whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit for decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit scheduled property and for delivery of possession of the suit scheduled property to the plaintiff as well as for future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery thereof and for costs.

(3.) The plaintiffs case as per plaint allegations is that the suit property which has been more specifically described in the schedule to the plaint and which property bears No. 270, situate at 4th Main, Tenth Cross, Narasimharaja Colony, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, 40 feet East to West and 30 feet North to South bounded, as East : 4th Main Road, West: House of G.S. Das, North : House of Sathyanarayana Shetty aiid South: 10th Cross Road, originally belonged to one Chinnaswamy Modliar, who according to the plaintiff was the grandfather of plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, Chinnaswamy, executed a Will of the suit property in favour of Lakshmamma alias Ananthamma. Plaintiff further alleged that said Lakshmanuna, in her turn executed a gift deed or to say made a gift of the suit scheduled property in favour of Smt. Rajamma (deceased mother of the plaintiff) on 16-8-1968. According to plaintiffs case, Smt. Lakshmamma had executed the gift and the above gift deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, but on that day the said Lakshniamma denied the execution of the gift deed before the Sub-Registrar, and so Sub-Registrar refused to register the above alleged gift deed dated 16-8-1968. According to plaintiff, plaintiff preferred the appeal from the order of Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar under Sec. 73 of the Registration Act. That during the pendency of the appeal said Smt. Lakshmanmia died on 22-12-1974 and application was made to the Special Deputy Commissioner to bring on record in the name of Smt. Rajamma, that is the plaintiffs mother, as the legal representative of deceased Lakshmamma. According to plaintiffs case that appeal was allowed after the evidence had been recorded by the Registrar and the Registrar allowing the appeal, directed the Sub-Registrar to register the said document from the date of appellate order vide its order dated 22-10-1977 and the gift deed dated 16-8-1968, was registered on 18-11-1977. Plaintiffs further case is that defendant filed the Writ Petition No. 13606 of 1977, in this Court for quashing order dated 22-10-1977, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, but the writ petition had been dismissed wide order dated 18-2-1992, as not pressed. According to plaintiffs case, the gift having been accepted by the plaintiffs mother, the transaction of gift completed itself. The plaintiff alleged that defendant claims to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of some other gift alleged to be executed and to have been registered on 26-9-1968. The plaintiff alleged that, since the property had already been gifted to the plaintiff-appellant on 16-8-1968, the gift deed dated 26-9-1968 on the basis of which the defendant respondent claims title and possession is invalid, null and inoperative, and defendant did not get any title and possession over the suit property on the basis of that gift deed d ;i d 26-9-1968. The plaintiff claimed himself to be entitled to possession of the suit property, as being the sole heir of deceased Smt. Rajamma, in whose favour gift deed dated 16-8-1968 had been executed, though registered on 18-11-1977. Plaintiff-appellant in the plaint has alleged that the cause of action has accrued on 16-8-1968, i.e., the date of the gift deed dated 16-8-1968 and on 18-11-1977 on the date of its registration.