VEERAPPA Vs. KALAKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in OS No.87/1992 feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court {Civil Judge (Sr.Dn. at Koppal)} in RA No.57/2004 dated 12.10.2004, by which the First Appellate Court reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.2001 passed in OS No.87/1992.

(2.) The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant herein was the plaintiff, while the respondents herein were the defendants before the Trial Court.

(3.) The plaint averments reveal that the suit property bearing Sy.No.37/A measuring 1 acre 18 guntas was originally owned and possessed by Kalakavva who had inherited the said property from her father. The said Kalakavva was the maternal aunt of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that Kalakavva had executed a Will dated 10.05.1984 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing the suit property. During her lifetime, Kalakavva gave a vardi to enter the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records pursuant to which the name of the plaintiff was entered as "Paschat Maalik". Further, it is claimed that after the death of Kalakavva, the plaintiff became the full and absolute owner of the suit property as the legatee under the registered Will and that he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further, he claimed that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit land. It is stated that after the death of Kalakavva and after she gave vardi to the village Office of Binnal village, the defendant had illegally succeeded in getting his name entered in the revenue records in collusion with the village office and thereafter the defendant No.1 sold the suit property to the defendant No.2. Further, a suit was filed by defendant No.1 in OS No.73/1992 for declaration of his title and for perpetual injunction against Channabasappa concerning the suit property. The said Channabasappa managed to get the said suit disposed of by a compromise decree. Thus, the plaintiff claiming to be the legatee of Kalakavva, filed the present suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for perpetual injunction. Alternatively, he also claimed the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants, if the Court found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the same.