M D GOPALAIAH Vs. USHA PRIYADARSHINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 2956/88 on the file of the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. At the request of the counsel for the appellants and the respondents, the matter was heard at the admission stage. The trial Court records were also secured for the purpose of perusal.

(2.) THE appellant is the first defendant in the suit. The second respondent is the second defendant in the suit and the first respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and for possession and mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, the ancestral property earlier belonged one Kare Rangaiah, the father-in-law of the second defendant and Gangaiah, who is the husband of the second defendant. It is said that the suit property was allotted to the share under a registered partition deed dated 15-12-1945. Gangaiah, the husband of the second defendant died somewhere in the year 1951 and he had no issues. He left behind his widow, the second defendant. Later on, the father-in-law of the second defendant Kare Rangaiah also died in the year 1955. Thus, it is said that after the death of the husband and the father-in-law, the second defendant became the absolute owner of the property and she sold the property to the plaintiff in the year 1980 under a registered sale-deed. Therefore, the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed in her favour and seek for possession and for mesne profits.

(3.) THE second defendant has remained ex parte. The appellant/first defendant has contested the suit contending that he is the adopted son of the second defendant under an adoption deed and by virtue of the adoption, he has a right in the suit property. The second defendant had no right of alienation and the sale-deed executed does not convey any title in favour of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.