DODDATHAYAMMA Vs. THAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is absent. Hence, taken as no arguments.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 have filed the suit in O.S.No.79/1994 against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 seeking the relief of declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. In the plaint, it is contended that, Sy.No.13/2 of Chikkaballi Village, an extent of 2 acres, 26 guntas originally belongs to one Kemparama Setty of Chikkaballi Village. The said Kemparama Setty had five sons by name Kivuda Lingasetty @ Kulla Thimmasetty, Thimmasetty, Sannasetty, Javarasetty and Marilingasetty. After the death of Kemparama Setty, his sons partitioned the ancestral property, including 2 acres, 26 guntas in Sy.No.13/3 of Chikkaballi Village and each of them have got 22 guntas of land. In the plaint, they have shown the rough sketch which has fallen to the share of Marilingasetty which is now in possession of his daughter Ramamma i.e., "D, E, H and I" i.e., 16 1/2 guntas of land after deducting 6 1/2 guntas acquired for A.K. Colony and the said portion was sold by wife of Javarasetty- Sannamma to the husband of the first plaintiff for valuation consideration under registered sale deed dtd. 5/10/1966. Thus, there remained no land in Sy.No.13/3 to the legal representatives of Javarasetty. Sannasetty, son of Lingasetty, the legal representative of third sharer, sold 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.13/A to Thimmegowda, the husband of the first plaintiff for a valuation consideration under a registered sale deed dtd. 12/6/1967. Again, Sannasetty, son of Lingasetty @ Kivudasetty sold "M, N, O, P, I and J" portion in the rough sketch to late Thimmamma for a valuation consideration under a registered sale deed dtd. 13/5/1967, which property is in possession of the plaintiffs, even to now. Again, Lingasetty sold 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.13/3 to Thimmegowda, the husband of the first plaintiff i.e., "A, B, N, M and B" portion for a valuation consideration under a registered sale deed dtd. 25/6/1971. Again, Lingasetty, son of Kivuda Lingasetty sold 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.13/A to Thimmegowda, the husband of the first plaintiff for a valuable consideration under the registered sale deed dtd. 9/9/1971 i.e., "B, C, O and N" portion. Thus, out of 22 guntas of land of the share of Kivuda Lingasetty, his legal representatives have sold 16 guntas of land to Thimmegowda and his elder sister Thimmamma and thus, there remained only 6 guntas of land to the legal representatives of Kivuda Lingasetty which was mortgaged with possession to late Thimmegowda. But, Ningasetty and his sons sold 16 guntas of land to the third defendant and retained only 6 guntas of land showing the extent as 15 1/2 guntas with wrong boundaries, covering the land purchased by Thimmegowda from Sannamma, wife of Javarasetty i.e., "D, E, H and I" and the land purchased by