V. SHOBHA Vs. VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The plaintiff claimed as the absolute owner of site no. 21, Byatarayanapura, Khata no. 647/21, measuring 30 feet x 52 feet, of Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and claimed to have acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 12.5.2004 and was in possession of the property since such purchase. It is stated that the vendor of the appellant was one Amarendra. He, in turn, had purchased the property under a registered sale deed from one Venkatalakshmamma, who is the respondent herein, but through her General Power of Attorney holder, one Renukachari. It is on the basis of such transactions, that the appellant was claiming title to the property. The land had been converted for non -agricultural residential purpose by order of the competent authority dated 28.3.1989 and the respondent had formed a residential layout as per the layout plan approved by the Grama Panchayath in respect of the said lands. In order to prevent the trespassers, the plaintiff had fenced the property. It transpires that the respondent, along with her men, sought to remove the fence. It is at that point of time that a suit came to be filed.

(2.) THE respondent had resisted the suit claiming that her husband Ramaiah was the owner of the property and after his death, she had inherited the property. Though he had sold land bearing Survey No. 182/6 to his son Devaraju, the other lands belonging to him, had been inherited by the appellant along with her children. Therefore, when she learnt that there was interference with the land by third -parties, she had issued a public notice warning people against dealing with such power of attorney, seeking to alienate the suit properties It is on these pleadings, that the court below had framed the following issues: - 1. Whether plaintiff proves her lawful) possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference?

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the respondent had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S. No. 92/2006 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, wherein the present appellant is defendant no. 7; the vendor of the appellant namely, V. Amarendra, is defendant no. 6 and the power of attorney holder, Renukachari is defendant no. 5. Since the plaintiff therein who is the present respondent has sought for possession of the suit property, including the suit schedule property, which is the subject matter of this appeal, it is evident that the respondent was not in possession of the suit property, in which event, the pending suit, in which the present appellant is a contesting party, would decide the rights of the respective parties. Hence, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appellant's suit, the appeal is disposed of holding that the dismissal of the appellant's suit will not prejudice the case of the appellant in so far as the pending suit is concerned and the result in that suit will decide the respective rights of the parties insofar as the title to the property is concerned. With that observation, the appeal stands disposed of.