LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-516

HONAPPA IRAPPA HITTALAMANI Vs. BASAVANNEPPA TIRAKAPPA MATTIMANI

Decided On April 04, 2014
Honappa Irappa Hittalamani Appellant
V/S
Basavanneppa Tirakappa Mattimani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS of an original suit bearing O.S.No.118/2001, which was pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Ranebennur are before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.89/2006, which was pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Ranebennur. Respondent is the sole defendant in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

(2.) PLAINTIFF No.1 -Honnappa and his brother Beerappa, father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4 were the original owners of the suit schedule properties. The suit property was sold in favour of the defendant - Basavanneppa through a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1971. According to the plaintiffs, though a registered deed was executed by Honnappa and Beerappa, possession was not handed over in favour of the purchaser and that the names of Honnappa and Beerappa continued in the revenue records. According to the plaintiffs, said sale deed is the outcome of fraud played upon the sellers. It is further averred that the alienation so made in favour of the defendant is contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms (amended) Act, 1974.

(3.) A suit had been filed by defendant in O.S.No.104/1974 against Honnappa, Beerappa and Nagappa and that suit came to be decreed by the then Munsiff Court at Ranebennur. The said judgment and decree does not bind the plaintiffs is their averment. With these pleadings they had requested the Court to declare that the sale deed dated 16.12.1971 is the outcome of fraud and that it is contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms (amended) Act, 1974 and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.104/1974 does not bind the plaintiffs in any manner. Defendant chose to file detailed written statement denying all the material averments. According to him, the sale deed is an out and out sale deed and it was executed in his favour by receiving valid consideration and that it is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act before the Sub -Registrar at Byadagi. It is further averred that on taking possession of the suit schedule property, defendant is in lawful possession of the same and when the sellers started obstructing his possession, he had to file a suit in O.S.No.104/1974 against them and that the said suit has been decreed by a competent civil Court and the same cannot be called in question by filing another suit. With these pleadings, he had prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed.