A V SAROJAMMA Vs. CHANDRASHEKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and learned counsel for the respondent-defendant.

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

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the appellantsplaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction is that suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.66/2 measuring 1 acre, 12 guntas stands in the name of husband of first plaintiff and Sy.No.66/3, an extent of 1 gunta stands in the name of defendant's father. It is also contended that defendant wrongly got changed the khatha in his name in M.R.No.30/2010-2011 and it is also contended that on 1/5/2012, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property. It is also the contention that the property in Sy.No.66/2 originally was an ancestral property of late Doddamallappa, the father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and he enjoyed and was in possession of the schedule property till his life time. It is contended that till 1966, land measuring 1 acre, 12 guntas in Sy.No.66/2 was standing in the name of late Doddamallappa, the father-in-law of the plaintiffs and 1 gunta of land in Sy.No.66/3 was standing in the name of the father of the defendant by name Ningappa. When this was the case, after 1966-67, the property measuring 1 acre, 12 guntas in Sy.No.66/2 was interchanged in the name of the defendant's father Ningappa as Sy.No.66/3 to that extent and 1 gunta in Sy.No.66/3 entered in the name of husband of the first plaintiff late A.D. Veerappaji as Sy.No.66/2. The documents clearly reflects the fact that an extent of 1 acre, 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.66/2 is standing in the name of the father-in-law of first plaintiff late Doddamallappa and subsequent to death of fatherin-law, the documents disclose the name of husband of the first plaintiff and he has got mutated the revenue entries in his name and the same has been interchanged.