CHANDRAPPA SHANKAREPPA MALAKATTI Vs. GURAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the concurrent findings given by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sankeshwar, in O.S.No.170/2000 and affirmation thereof in the Regular Appeal No.84/2005. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the said suit and respondents were the defendants in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the Trial Court.

(2.) ONE person by name Shankareppa had two sons by name Appanna and Chandrappa. Both of them are no more. This Chandrappa was alive when the suit was filed by him in the year 2000. Appanna was already dead when the said suit bearing O.S.No.170/2000 was filed. Defendant No.1 Guravva, was wife of the deceased Appanna and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are her children.

(3.) SY .No.118/12B/1 measures 1.39 acres and Sy.No.118/12B/2 measures 2 acres of land. These two sub - Snumbers have been carved out of the original Sy.No.118/12B. The deceased Appanna was the owner of this land based on conferment of occupancy right in his favour by the Land Tribunal. Similarly, Chandrappa the plaintiff was stated to be in possession of 2 acres of land on the basis of the Land Tribunal's order. According to the plaintiff, one single application was filed by himself and his brother Appanna, jointly seeking conferment of occupancy right in respect of 3.39 acres and this application was filed before the Land Tribunal. According to him, Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights jointly in his favour as well in favour of his elder brother Appanna and therefore they were in joint possession of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.118/12B. According to him, Appanna could not have alienated any land in Sy.No.118/12B without first offering the same to him, as the plaintiff had preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. As Appanna chose to alienate 1 acre of land each in Sy.No.118/12B/1 without first offering to him, he had to file a suit for seeking preferential right under Section 22 and for mandatory injunction with a direction to reconvey the property in his favour by receiving the consideration as mentioned in the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants No.6 and 7. Relief of permanent injunction had also been sought against the defendants 6 and 7 on the ground that they could not have interfered with the joint possession, since the purchasers were strangers. With these pleadings he had filed a suit for the reliefs of declaration that he had preferential right and for consequential reliefs of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.