HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. M ADISHESHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Madhugiri, in R. A. No. 51/1984 dated 22. 2. 1988 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, pavagada, in O. S. No. 111/1980 dated 16. 7. 1984.

(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 plaintiff filed the suit O. S. 111/1980 seeking for declaration of title to the schedule property and for cancellation of sale deed dated 3. 5. 1984 executed by second defendant in favour of first defendant and for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that Yengappa had two sons the plaintiff and his elder brother akkalappa and they constitute joint in the family, Akkalappa died in the year 1958 being issueless and his widow Gangamma died in the year 1979. The suit schedule property was granted in favour of akkalappa during the year 1952-53. Though the grant was made in favour of Akkalappa it was treated as joint family property and was in possession and enjoyment of Akkalappa and the plaintiff and after the death of Akkalappa and the suit schedule property was devolved upon the plaintiff who was the sole surviving coparcener of the joint family and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property along with members of the family.

(3.) IT is further averred that every year plaintiff has been raising dry crop in the schedule property and defendant obstructed plaintiff from an agricultural operation saying that they had got right in the suit property and the first defendant said that she has purchased half of the suit property from the second defendant under a sale deed dated 3. 5. 1954 for a consideration of Rs. 200 (Rupees two hundred only) and even the entries in the record of rights have been falsely written in the name of Ramaiah-deceased husband of the first defendant and defendants have not been in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property at any time. The defendants who are the powerful persons in the village having the support of the large number of persons are denying the title of the plaintiff and attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. In the alternative, it was also observed that for any reason the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff or his deceased brothers are not the owners of the suit property, the plaintiff or his deceased brothers have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the year 1952-53 for over a statutory period to the knowledge of the persons interested in the suit property and have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession.