NARANDAPPA GOUDA Vs. SHARANGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2007 in O.S.No.55/2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Jewargi, and judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 in R.A.No.42/2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jewargi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellants.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) Factual aspects of the case are that, father of the plaintiff, Basannagouda Biradar S/o Rudrappagouda was in possession of the suit schedule properties. There are four suit schedule properties viz., Sy.No.83 measuring 31 acre 23 guntas; Sy.No.3 measuring 5 acre 4 guntas; Sy.No.4 measuring 12 acre 22 guntas and Sy.No.83 measuring 5 acres, all situated at Yadrami village. Sy.No.83 at Sl.No.1 above is the ancestral property and the survey numbers at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 are the malai lands. It is further averred in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff had no rights of ownership to transfer the malai lands at Sl.Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiff further stated that after the death of his father he had inherited the same. The land mentioned at Sl.No.4 was granted by the government in favour of the wife of the plaintiff as per the proceedings dated 02.03.1999 and thus, the lands are belonging to the plaintiff and defendants have no semblance of right over these properties. Despite the same, the defendants being influential persons have created fictitious sale deed in respect of the suit lands at Sl.Nos.1 to 3 in the name of defendant No.2. It is further stated that father of the plaintiff had no right to execute the sale deed dated 30.12.1969 in respect of the suit schedule properties and therefore, the said sale deed dated 30.12.1969 is void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has preferred No.REV/LND/108/9697 before the Assistant Commissioner with regard to change of mutation and the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 25.02.1997 passed an order in favour of the plaintiff and his wife Smt. Indirabai and pursuant to the same, record of rights were mutated in the name of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.02.1997, defendant No.2 has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in REV/RP/12/1997-98 and the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed the parties to approach the civil Court for adjudication of their civil rights. Hence, the plaintiff in order to safeguard his right and interest in respect of suit schedule properties has filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in O.S.No.55/2003 on the file of the trial Court.