G RAVINDRA, Vs. M THIMMA REDDY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Court of the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH - 38) in O.S.No.3006/2002

(2.) THE case of the respondent - plaintiff in brief is that the land measuring 8 acres standing at Sy.No.65 of Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore belonged to one Reddigara Reddanna, the great grandfather of the plaintiff. On his demise, his two sons Thimmareddy and Yellareddy succeeded to the said property. On the death of Thimmareddy, Yellareddy and Yellareddy's son Muniyappa, the land measuring 1 acre, 20 guntas was settled on Thippareddy, S/o. Thimmareddy by his aunt, Thimmakka, wife of Yellareddy by a settlement deed, dated 03.05.1909. After the death of Thippareddy, his two sons Thimmaiah and Reddappa succeeded to the said lands. Reddappa died issueless. Consequently, Thimmaiah succeeded to the entire property left behind by Thippareddy. Around 1931, 39 guntas out of the lands at Sy.Nos.65/1 and 65/3 were acquired for the purpose of Defence Department. Thimmaiah was left with 25 guntas. After the death of Thimmaiah, his three sons, namely, Thippareddy, Munireddy and Yellareddy succeeded to his properties. Thippareddy, Munireddy and Yellareddy partitioned the properties by a partition deed, dated 12.05.1969 (Ex.P23). As the property in question was left out by inadvertence, Munireddy and Yellareddy executed the settlement deed, dated 12.06.1970 (Ex.P3) allotting the property in question to Thippareddy. The name of Thippareddy was entered in the revenue records as per M.R.No.5/77 -78, dated 06.04.1977 (Ex.P7). On 05.06.1999 (Ex.P4), Thippareddy, Yellareddy and Subbamma (wife of Munireddy) partitioned their properties. In the said partition arrangement, the property in question fell to the share of Subbamma. The said Subbamma gifted it out to the plaintiff, who is her son, on 09.06.1999 (Ex.P5). On the basis of the said registered gift deed, the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the land in question.

(3.) THE defendant No.2 filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. He denied that the land at Sy.No.65 measured 8 acres and that it was an ancestral property of the plaintiff. He denied the genealogical tree. He denied the gifting out of the suit schedule property by Subbamma in favour of her son, the plaintiff. After making these denials, he contended that the suit schedule property is family property of late Krishna Reddy. On 5.6.1969 the family members of the defendants and other sons of late Krishna Reddy partitioned their joint family properties. In the said partition, the suit property was reserved for the purpose of religious functions of family deity 'Sri Srinivasadevaru'; the usufructs of the suit schedule property are to be used for the said purpose. He also contended that the suit is bad for the non -joinder of necessary parties, as all the members of the defendant's family are not made parties to the suit. He also contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property. He contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. He contended that the plaintiff is making efforts to grab the suit schedule property by illegal methods. The defendant No.1 adopted the written statement of the defendant No.2.