K V SATHYANARAYAN Vs. H V RAMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated: 16.01.2006 passed in OS No. 275/2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Doddaballapur. By the said judgment and decree the Trial Court decreed the suit and consequently declared the plaintiffs as owners in possession of the suit schedule property and granted injunction against the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original ranking i.e., as plaintiffs and defendants in this appeal also.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property i.e., the property over which the Gopal Krishna Swamy temple and choultry attached to the said temple are situated belonged to one Shakedar Govindappa, father of G. Thimmaiah; after demise of Shakedar Govindappa, G. Thimmaiah was managing the affairs of the temple; G. Thimmaiah being Revenue Inspector was unable to take care of the temple and the choultry and had entrusted the same to H.M. Venkataramanappa (father of the plaintiffs) 10 to 12 years prior to executing the agreement deed dated 15.06.1947; the agreement dated 15.06.1947 was for a period of four years by G. Thimmaiah in favour of father of the plaintiffs namely H.M. Venkataramanappa; by virtue of the said agreement, the management of the temple was handed over in favour of H.M. Venkataramanappa by G. Thimmaiah for a period of four years; even after four years G. Thimmaiah did not come forward to claim the possession of the temple or the suit schedule property from H.M. Venkataramanappa; said H.M. Venkataramanappa renovated certain portion of the temple during the period from 1947 to 1955; besides, he constructed two more temples adjacent to existing Venugopalaswamy temple and installed the idols of Rama-Sita, Lakshmana, Hanumantha and Mata Saraswathi in the year 1955; a wooden chariot with silver plate embossed was created by H.M. Venkataramanappa and pooja activities were being performed by him; during his life time he created a deed of trust for the management of the affairs of the temple of which H.M. Venkataramanappa and both the plaintiffs (sons of H.M. Venkataramanappa) were trustees; after the demise of plaintiffs father namely H.M. Venkataramanappa, plaintiffs continued in possession of the suit schedule property including management of the temple; their names came to be entered in the municipal records in the year 1992; at that point of time, the Defendant No. 1 started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the management of the temple; since the defendants started denying the plaintiffs right over the properties in question including the temple management, the present suit came to be filed for declaration that they have become owners by virtue of adverse possession over the suit schedule property and for the relief of injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the temple property by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: