VENKATASWAMY REDDY Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree dtd. 23/6/2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and J.M.F.C, Anekal in O.S.No.847/2006 (Old No. 939/2004) and the concurring judgment and decree dtd. 5/12/2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District in R.A. No. 186/2008. Both the Courts held that the plaintiffs were entitled to be declared as the owners of the suit schedule property based on the Will dtd. 28/1/1986 executed by their father.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court. The appellant herein was the defendant and the respondents herein were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed a suit contending that they were the daughters and the defendant was the son of late Veera Reddy. It is stated that Veera Reddy died leaving behind his wife Smt. Nanjamma. There was a division of the properties between Veera Reddy and the defendant in the year 1978 and in the said division, the defendant took his share in the family properties and was residing separately. The suit properties fell to the share of Veera Reddy and Veera Reddy executed a Will dtd. 28/1/1986 bequeathing the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs. The said Sri.Veera Reddy is stated to have died on 18/5/1991. Prior to the filing of the suit when the plaintiffs had been to Lakshmipura village, the defendant had attempted to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties. On coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs applied for transfer of khatha and the revenue records to their names. The plaintiffs received an endorsement from the Tahsildar that by M.R.No.3/1993-1994, the khatha was already transferred to the name of the defendant and therefore directed the plaintiff to approach the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-division. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating encumbrance in the suit properties.