IMAMSAB MALIKSAB HALLIKERI Vs. RASULBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a defendants' second appeal against the lower appellate court's judgment reversing the finding of the trial court and giving the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs.

(2.) the plaintiffs brought the suit fora permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties consisted of two bits of agricultural lands bearing S.Nos. 173/4 plus 5 and 216/3 plus 4 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas and 5 acres 22 guntas respectively in sasvihalli in navalgund taluk, dharwad district as well as the house bearing vpc.no. 384/b situated at sasvihalli. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were once owned by hasansab who died in the year 1970-71. His widow, and plaintiff-2 sunabi, his daughter, after the death of hasansab continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and the house as owners. They filed an application to have their namas entered in the record of rights and necessary mutation was done and duly certified. Thereafter, defendant- 1 had given a false application to have his name included in the mutation register as the owner. That was objected to by the plaintiffs. The matter on the revenue side was heard and the application of defendant-1 to interpolate himself as successor to hasansab came to be rejected. An appeal against the order to the assistant commissioner came to be dismissed. In that circumstance, the plaintiffs being ladies, the defendants began to obstruct their peaceful possession of the properties which compelled the plaintiffs to approach the court for injunction.

(3.) defendants 1 to 4 entered appearance and contested the suit. They alleged that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property and that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the properties. They were not residing in sasvihalli. They were residing at asundi in gadag taluk. Plaintiff-1 was not widow of hasansab, nor the 2nd plaintiff, the daughter. The plaintiffs were strangers to the suit properties. The order of the tahsildar and the other authorities were not binding on the defendants as they were not competent to decide civil rights. The plaintiffs suit was not maintainable as they had sought for declaration of title. Therefore, the suit might be dismissed with costs.