L R S MARAPPA Vs. THIMME GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1979 of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in R. A. No. 11 of 1978 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1977 of the Munsiff, Doddaballapur, in O. S. .No 168 of 1969.

(2.) Respondent No. I/plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 168 of 1969 against defendant No. 1 and his brother Hanumantharayappa who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 for recovery of possession of a house bearing No. 53 and vacant site situated at Muppadigatta in Madure Hobli, more fully described in the plaint schedule He claimed title to the property under a registered gift deed dated 27-3-1941 executed by his mother in-law Hanumakka. He alleged that the defendants were in possession of the same as trespassers without any manner of right, title and interest and they had not delivered the same when called upon by him to do so

(3.) In his written statement, defendant No. 1 denied the gift deed alleged to have been executed by Hanumakka and the title of the plaintiff to the property. He claimed that it was the ancestral family property of the defendants and they were in possession of the same for over 50 years He also alleged that Hanumakka had executed a document on 26-5-1938 in favour of his mother relinquishing ;:JJ her rights in her favour and that she had also delivered possession to his mother on the same day. Proceeding further, he stated that the said document has been attested by the plaintiff and he is estopped from denying his title or claiming any title in himself. Alternatively defendant No. 1 alleged that he and the other defendants were in continuous and undisturbed possession and had acquired title by prescription over the said property. He also alleged that the suit was not maintainable and was also barred by time. Defendant No. 2 also filed a separate written statement adopting the written statement of defendant No. 1 and stating the very things that had been stated by defendant No. 1