CHANNAMMA Vs. SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant who has questioned concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below wherein both the Courts have declared plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and have further declared that the sale deed dtd. 16/12/1989 is a fraudulent and a void document and consequently, defendant is directed to deliver possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff instituted a suit for possession. Plaintiff also sought the relief of declaration claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff specifically contended that he has acquired the property vide indenture of deed dtd. 20/10/1970. Plaintiff specifically pleaded that owing to his health problems he was compelled to migrate to Nannivala from Bommakkanahalli village. Plaintiff claimed that suit land was given to the husband of defendant who readily agreed to cultivate the land by giving half share in the agriculture yield to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed that when defendant was called upon to handover possession, she declined on the premise that she is the owner of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff immediately rushed to the revenue office and on enquiry found that defendant has concocted a fraudulent document styled as sale deed dtd. 16/12/1989. Plaintiff alleged that this sale deed is created by false personation and therefore, questioned the sale deed to declare it as a void document.