SHIVANGOUDA SANNALINGANGOWDA PATIL Vs. GODIGEWA ALIAS VIMALALATAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and 8th respondent were the plaintiffs and other respondents were the defendants in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 16 of 1975, which was later numbered as O. S. No. 6 of 1979 after transfer, for possession of suit schedules 'b' and 'c' properties and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs and 7th defendant are the legal heirs of their father and defendants 1 to 4 are not legal heirs and since defendants 1 to 4 did not handover possession of the suit lands to the plaintiffs, suit is filed. The defendants resisted by filing written statement denying the case pleaded by the plaintiffs and contending that they are the legal heirs of Veeranagouda, who married the mother of defendants 1 to 4. It is stated that the Government has regranted the land in their favour. The defendants 1 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Both the parties led evidence by examining witnesses and producing documents. On appreciation of the material evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 18-6-1982. At the same time, the Trial Court negatived the case pleaded by the defendants that they are the legal heirs of Veeranagouda. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs filed appeal in R. A. No. 32 of 1982 and defendants filed cross-objections challenging the findings recorded by the Trial Court against them. Upon consideration of the appeal and cross-objections, the first Appellate Court by its judgment dated 17-9-1998 allowed the cross-objections and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal is filed by the legal representative of 2nd plaintiff.

(3.) THIS appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the judgments and decrees of Courts below are vitiated for holding that the suit is not maintainable without seeking a declaration? 2. Whether the lower Court was justified in reversing the finding regarding the validity of marriage in the absence of pleading regarding uduki form of marriage?