BASAMMA Vs. SAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in R. A. No. 133/1982 dated 18. 8. 1990 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, chincholi in O. S. No. 26/1980 dated 20. 4. 1982.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal are as follows: the parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of ownership, possession and for future mesne profits from the defendant averring that the suit schedule property known as Tari Hola measuring 3 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 197 situated at Chincholi Taluk, Gulbarga district as per the boundary given in the schedule is of the ownership of the plaintiffs. It is averred that one Lingappa was the ancestor of the plaintiffs parent s family. Said Lingappa had three sons -Anthappa, Sayanna and Mallappa. Anthappa is the father of the plaintiff and Papamma was the mother of the plaintiff. Sayanna had a son of name Lingappa. Said Lingappa went in adoption to bhagavathi family. Mallappa had a son by name Lachappa. Said lachappa had a son Anthappa, husband of the defendant. It is averred that Lingappa and his three sons Anthappa, Sayanna are no more. It is averred that mother of the plaintiff expired on 3. 12. 1968 at Belkattur. It is averred that the suit schedule land was being cultivated by the mother of the plaintiffs through the defendant by supplying seeds and other material on the condition that the defendant would be given fodder and the defendant was cultivating the land on the basis of the material given by the plaintiffs mother and was getting fodder as consideration for growing the crops. After the death of Papamma the plaintiffs have succeeded to the schedule property as owners. The defendant is nothing to do with the suit property or to the succession of the plaintiffs mother Papamma. Defendant being relative of the plaintiff and since parties were in good relations among themselves and as the plaintiffs are residing at Belkattur, the land was being got cultivated through the defendant subject to the condition referred to above and it is further averred that as usual the plaintiff came to Chincholi about 11 months prior to the filing of the suit on 27. 6. 1980 and asked the defendant how much seeds were required for the crops to be grown in the suit land. Defendant replied that the suit land belongs to her and plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit land and then the plaintiffs went to tahsildar office and ascertained that the entries in the revenue records were made in the name of the defendant by making false representation and fraud was played by the defendant and wherefore the suit for declaration, possession for mesne profits.

(3.) THE defendant resisted the suit and contended that defendant is the owner of the schedule property, her husband Anthappa was adopted by Papamma and after the death of Papamma her husband succeeded to the property and after the death of her husband, the defendant is cultivating the land in her own right and as she has succeeded to the property of her husband who is the adopted son of Papamma and plaintiffs are not the owners of the schedule property and it was further averred that suit is barred by time. Defendant asserted in the alternative that she is in adverse possession of suit land for more than 12 years continuously openly and within the knowledge and exclusion of the plaintiff and has perfected her ownership and title over the suit schedule land and wherefore the suit is barred by time and is liable to be dismissed.