VENKATACHALAIAH Vs. NANJUNDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Nanjundaiah filed a suit in O. S. No. 58 / 78 before the Civil Judge, Tiptur, for declaration of title over the suit properties and permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Tiptur, on 30-1-1982. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 challenged this judgment before the learned District Judge, Tumkur, in R. A. No. 4/82 and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 5-11-1962. Aggrieved by this judgment, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have come up with this Second Appeal.

(2.) During the pendency of this appeal, Nanjundaiah, the plaintiff died and his wife and Krishna Gowda were brought on record as legal representatives of Nanjundaiah. The case of the plaintiff was, that the suit schedule property belonged to one Dasaru Chikkanna, that he purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 9-11-1955 in the name of the first defendant his brother-in-law, and that he has been in possession of the same by paying land revenue and improving the land. His alternative case was that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, having been in enjoyment of the same since 9-11-1955. He contended that defendant No. 1 was not the real owner and he, with the assistance of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land. The first defendant has remained ex parte and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contend that the first defendant is the real owner and that the plaintiff has not perfected his title by adverse possession. They also contend that 2 acres 38 guntas of the suit land was purchased by defendant No. 2 and the remaining one acre of the suit land was purchased by defendant No. 3 from defendant No. 1 under two registered sale deeds dated 14-9-1977. The trial Court framed the following five issues :

(3.) After trial, the learned Civil Judge answered issue No. 1 in the negative, issues Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and held on issue No. 4 that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value. Consequently, the suit was decreed.