THIMMAPPA Vs. RAJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under the Darkasth long ago. Accordingly, khata came to be mutated in his name. Since, from the date of acquisition he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner. Defendants being stranger to the suit schedule property having no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule property tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property besides trying to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit.

(3.) The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the plaintiff's right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. It is contended that one Nagappa @ Durgappa had three sons by name Honnappa "" defendant No.1, Thimmappa "" plaintiff and Ramachandrappa and three daughters by name Eramma, Kamalamma and Gangamma. Daughters of said Nagappa were married long ago. Nagappa and his sons continued to enjoy their family properties. Nagappa @ Durgappa died about 35 years' ago. The joint family was in unauthorized occupation and possession of suit schedule property. Nagappa died prior to the grant, plaintiff being wordly wise man having the knowledge about grant, with the consent of his brothers, made an application before the revenue authority to get the land granted in his favour. Joint family paid the upset price to get the grant in favour of plaintiff and accordingly, suit schedule property was granted in favour of plaintiff under Darkasth. Plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Ramachandrappa got the suit schedule property partitioned about 15 years ago orally. In the said partition, eastern 1/2 portion of suit schedule property i.e. 3 acres had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and western 1/2 portion had fallen to the share of plaintiff. Defendant has been enjoying his share as absolute owner. When he made an application before revenue authority to get the khata in his name, plaintiff refused to give consent. Taking advantage of strained relationship plaintiff tried to dispossess him.