K.V. SATHYANARAYAN DAS Vs. SRI H.V. RAMPRAKASH, SRI H.V. VENKATESH, HADONAHALLI VENKATARAMANAPPA VENUGOPAL SWAMY TRUST (HPV TRUST) AND SRI H.V. MURTHY

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. The case of the Defendant No. 1 in brief is that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property; he had earlier filed a suit in OS No. 128/1991 for injunction against Defendant No. 2 herein; Defendant No. 2 herein is none other than the cousin of the plaintiffs; in the said suit, plaintiff No. 1 herein had deposed as a witness on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 herein in OS No. 128/1991; the said suit came to be decreed in favour of Defendant No. 1; the suit schedule property in OS No. 128/1991 was the portion of the suit schedule property in the present suit and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable; Defendant No. 1 denies the existence of agreement dated 15.06.1947; according to Defendant No. 1 the said agreement is created, concocted and therefore the same is required to be proved by the plaintiffs in accordance with law. It is further case of Defendant No. 1 that he is the adopted son of late G. Thimmaiah and he was adopted by G. Thimmaiah when he was three months old after performing necessary ceremonies such as Dutta homa etc.,; since Defendant No. 1 is the sole surviving heir of G. Thimmaiah, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property including the temple. As the plaintiffs have not proved the continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit property after 1947 and as there is nothing on record to show that as to when the permissive possession of property became adverse to the interest of the owner, the decree for declaration based on an alleged adverse possession cannot be granted. On the very ground he has opposed the suit for the relief of injunction also. Defendant No. 2 has also filed written statement independently. He concedes to the case of the plaintiffs. He has pleaded that Sri. Venugopala Swamy temple which is situated on the suit property was managed by the plaintiffs father H.M. Venkataramanappa since 1966 uninterruptedly without hindrance of any party; said H.M. Venkataramanappa was spending money for management of the temple; at no point of time, Defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit schedule property; Defendant No. 1 is not the legal heir of deceased G. Thimmaiah; Defendant No. 1 is infact the son of late Venkatpathidas and not the adopted son of G. Thimmaiah. On these grounds he has prayed for decreeing the suit.

(3.) IN support of their case the plaintiffs' have examined, the plaintiff No. 1 as PW1 and two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and they have produced 45 documents which were marked as Ex. P1 to P45. Defendant No. 1 was examined as DW1 and on his behalf two witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 respectively and 40 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to D40. After hearing and perusing of the material on record, Trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal is filed by defendant No. 1. The Trial Court has also held that the Defendant No. 1 has not proved that he is the adopted son of late G. Thimmaiah.