SHESHAPPA Vs. GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order dtd. 11/2/2021 passed in O.S.No.35/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chittapur, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner - defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11(b) of Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth referred as 'CPC').

(2.) The aforesaid suit has been filed by the respondents - plaintiffs against the petitioner as well as other respondents for the relief of partition and separate possession, declaration, rectification of record of right in respect of the suit schedule properties which included the land old Sy.No.107 and new Sy.No.195/e measuring 05 acres 35 guntas and house property bearing H.No.13-116 at Tarkaspet village Kallur Gram Panchayat Limits, Tq: Chittapur Dist: Kalaburagi.

(3.) The plaintiffs in the said suit have claimed that one Saibanna purchased the suit property in the name of his son Siddappa under deed of sale dtd. 13/6/1966. The said Saibanna died in the year 1982. His son Siddappa in whose name the property was purchased, predeceased his father in the year 1981. However, name of Siddappa reflected in the records of rights upto 2009- 10. Gangamma-Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of said Siddappa, Bheemaraya-plaintiff No.2, Hanamant-defendant No.2 and Sharanamma-defendant No.3 are the sons and daughters respectively of said Siddappa. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1, 5 and 6 are strangers to the family and have got nothing to do with the suit properties. That there was no partition in respect of suit properties by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs on account of their profession are residing at Kalaburagi and Ullesugur. They permanently resided at Tarkaspet Village. However, taking undue advantage of their absence, the defendant No.1 has filed application before the revenue officials for mutation of the schedule-A property in collusion with revenue officials and got his name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the schedule - A property vide M.R.No.42/2009-10 dtd. 11/9/2009. Thereafter, the name of defendant No.1 appeared in the revenue records. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of the mutation entries standing in his name, availed the financial assistance from the defendant No.4 by mortgaging the schedule - A property which is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.