BOMMANAYAKA Vs. BOMMANAYAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the plaintiff in O.S. No.45/2004 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC at Sira. Suit was filed against the respondents-defendants for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of a site bearing Katha No.68/78 (Old No.105/73) measuring 4 x20 yards (12 x 60 feet) situated at Seebi, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk. For convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter with reference to their rank in Trial Court.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the plaintiff is as follows: The suit property, which was an ancestral and joint family property, fell to his share in a family partition and the katha of the same stands in his name and that he has paid the tax to the Village Panchayath and that, though defendants have no right, title and/or interest over the suit property, they tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the same by him, by alleging that the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in favour of their mother Lingamma. It was stated that he had obtained loan from Lingamma of Umapathihalli and he repaid the same with interest and that he has not conveyed any right or interest over the suit property to Lingamma and the deed if any in her favour is not valid. It was stated that the defendants, about 15 days prior to the filing of the suit, entered into the suit property and canvassed that it belongs to them and thereby interfered with his possession and enjoyment, on account of which the suit was instituted seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

(3.) AFTER filing of the written statement and written statement to the counter-claim, the two brothers of defendants 1 and 2 i.e., Shivanna and Gurusiddappa were impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. Defendant No.4 filed written statement, wherein, it was stated that the allegations made in para 2 of the plaint are true and correct i.e., about the ancestral joint, family-property and prayed for dismissal of the suit. One Linganayaka, brother of the plaintiff was impleaded as 5th defendant, who filed written statement and admitted the allegations made in paras 2 and 4 of the plaint but denied the allegations made in para 3. He stated that suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and that the katha of the same stands in the name of the plaintiff and himself.