MURIGEPPA Vs. SHIVAPUTRA ADOPTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant No.1, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 19/9/2014 in R.A.No.09/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court', for brevity), confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 26/7/2005 passed in O.S.No.13/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) Raibag (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) , decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are that, the plaintiffs claims to be in possession and cultivation of the land bearing survey No.115 measuring 21 acre 31 guntas of Badabiyakud village, Raibagh Taluk. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the adoptive father of the plaintiff - Sidram, was cultivating the suit land as a tenant. After the death of the adoptive father and mother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff are in cultivation of the schedule property. During his lifetime, the adoptive father of the plaintiff-Sidram, made an application seeking occupancy rights in respect of the schedule property. However, he died during the pendency of the same and thereafter, the land Tribunal by order dtd. 8/4/1991 granted the schedule property to the plaintiff. Thereafter, mutation entries have been effected in the name of the plaintiff. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant is a stranger to their family but acquainted with him and taking undue advantage of his bad vices, the defendant got signature on the blank documents and thereafter submitted the same to the Revenue authorities stating that he is the uncle of the plaintiff and therefore, it is averred by the plaintiff that the defendant is no way concerned with the schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff resisted the claim made by the defendant, however, the defendant with high-handedness dispossessed the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.13/1994 before the trial Court seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of possession.