HANUMAKKA Vs. NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of defendant 4. The fact leading to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows: The properties in dispute belonged originally to one Narasimhappa, the father of the present plaintiff. Defendant 1 is the sister of the plaintiff's father; defendant 2 is the daughter of another sister of the plaintiff's father. Defendant 3 is the mortgagee from defendants 1 and 2, and defendant 4 claims to be the purchaser of the equity of redemption from defendants 1 and 2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsiff at Madhugiri, being original suit No. 98 of 1950-51. It is the case of the plaintiff that her father Narasimhappa died in the year 1951, that she was married during his life time when she was a minor, that defendants 1 and 2 who were elders were brought to her father's house before his death, that they were living with him and helping him in getting the family lands cultivated, that after her father's death, defendants 1 and 2 continued to have the lands cultivated for and on her behalf and that their possession of the suit property was permissive in character. The relation between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 became strained recently and as a result of this estrangement of relationship, defendants 1 and 2 mortgaged the suit properties in the month of April 1950 and sold the equity of redemption two months thereafter i.e., in the month of June 1950. She alleges that these acts on the part of defendants 1 and 2 are unauthorised. The properties belong to her and defendants 1 and 2 were in management of them on her behalf. The properties do not belong to them and they have no right to alienate the same.

(2.) Defendants 1,2, and 3 filed a joint written statement and denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the father of the plaintiff was indebted at the time of his death and that he wanted to discharge those debts. He asked them to discharge the debts and agreed to convey these properties to them. It is in pursuance of such an agreement that they are in possession of the suit properties. They therefore contended that, at the time of his death, Narasimhappa was not the owner of the suit properties. They further contended that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the law of limitation as it has not been filed within 12 years from the date of the death of Narasimhappa.

(3.) Defendants 4 filed a separate written statement. His contentions were more or less on the same lines as those of defendants 1, 2, and 3.