G MUTHAMMA Vs. S SRINIVASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's second appeal is against the divergent findings of the Courts below. The appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff in the course of this order. The appeal is prosecuted by the legal representatives of the plaintiff who died while the litigation was in progress. Respondents 1 to 10 were defendants having the same rank in the trial Court and will be referred to as 'defendants' in the course of this order.

(2.) According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff was the only daughter and sole heir to her father one Sri Gundappa (since deceased) Gundappa died on 15-1-1964 at Bangalore. He had purchased the suit schedule properties measuring one acre 33 guntas situated at Yelachenahalli, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, bearing Sy. No. 50|2 from defendants 4 to 10 on 2-8-1961 and his name had thereafter been entered in the R.T.C. Register as well as in the Khata maintained of the revenue lands in the village. After the death of Gundappa the plaintiff was personally cultivating the land and defendants 1 to 10 were interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land as the sole heir of her father Gundappa and therefore, she had prayed for declaration of title based on the saje deed and the fact that she was the sole heir of Gundappa cultivating the land in question personally. Further, she had prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment .

(3.) The trial Court, after recording, evidence and examining several documents, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in the suit and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants 1 to 3 filed an appeal in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, who reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had no title to the suit schedule properties and that she was not entitled to an order of injunction both for want of title as well as for not having been in possession of the suit-schedule properties at any time prior to the filing of the suit. It is against the appellate order that the present second appeal is filed.