LATE VEERABHADRAYYA CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA KADADEVARAMATH SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS. Vs. SHRI SIDDESHWAR KADADEVARMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court by which it set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff Sri Siddeshwar is the adopted son of Kadayya. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing C.T.S. No. 2890, C.W. Ward No. 2, Hubli, Dharwad District, consisting of a house a open space which is surrounded by the properties which are more particularly described in item No. 1 of the plaint and for short hereinafter referred to as the suit property.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit the second defendant, wife of the first defendant and the son of the first defendant were impleaded as parties. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a written statement denying all the allegations in the plaint. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Kadayya. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The defendants have filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 51/1988 on the file of Principal Civil Court. The case is set down for arguments. Therefore the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable. Therefore the suit is hit by Order 2 Rule 3 C.P.C. and it is liable to be dismissed on that ground. All the allegations in para No. 2 of the plaint are all false and the plaintiff has to prove the same. The Kadayya's elder brother was Veerabhadrayya. On his death as his children were all minors and as Kadayya and Veerabhadravya were living together and Kadayya was the Manager of the joint family, the mutation entry was made in the name of Kadayya. However, neither Kadayya nor his wife Gurubasawa have any title to the suit property. The allegation that the defendants are in possession of the schedule property on the permission granted by Smt. Gurubasawa is without any substance. On her death, the defendants continued in possession on the permission granted by the plaintiff is also not admitted. Similarly during his absence from Hubli, the defendants got the mutation entries transferred to their name, is not correct. The plaintiff has not issued any notice before filing of the suit, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the plaint. The plaintiff has not paid requisite fee for declaration of his title to the suit property. The plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 51/1988 has not stated he has acquired the suit property under the false Gift Deed or by way of adoption. He is putting forth a false claim in the suit.