(1.) APPELLANTS in RFA No.1871/2007 are the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in an original suit bearing O.S.No.201/1998, which was pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad. Defendant No.4 -Smt.Fakkiravva was transposed as plaintiff No.2 and she is the genetic mother of plaintiff No.1. Respondents herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 20 in the trial Court. Parties will be referred as plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 20 as per their ranking given in the trial Court.
(2.) DEFENDANT Nos.1 to 3 and 9 to 15 are the cross objectors in RFA Crob.No.6/2008. The regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC and cross objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC have arisen out of the same judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.201/1998. As such, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) PLAINTIFF No.1 is stated to have been adopted by late Basanagouda the father of plaintiff No.2. This plaintiff No.1 is incidentally the grandson of Basanagouda and his wife Basavva. The said Basanagouda and Basavva are no more. Plaintiff No.1 was taken in adoption by Basanagouda and Basavva on 03.05.1977. Defendant No.4 Smt.Fakkiravva, who is the genetic mother of plaintiff No.1, has sailed with her son plaintiff No.1 and therefore, she has got herself transposed as plaintiff No.2. The said Fakkiravva claimed herself to be the legate under the Will stated to have been executed by Basanagouda on 07.10.1994. The facts leading to the filing of the suit for declaration and title and permanent injunction are as follows: One person by name Dyavanagouda was the propositus. He had two sons namely, Basanagouda and Iranagouda. Basanagouda had a wife by name Basavva and both of them are no more. Basanagouda's younger brother Iranagouda is also no more. Basanagouda died on 25.03.1998. His wife Basavva pre -deceased him. During his lifetime, Basanagouda had taken plaintiff No.1 Naganagouda son of plaintiff No.2 - Fakiravva in adoption. Basanagouda is survived by six daughters, namely, Ningavva -defendant No.1, Shantavvadefendant No.2, Kallavva -defendant No.3, Fakiravvadefendant No.4 (transposed as plaintiff No.2 subsequently), Gangavva -defendant No.5 and late Chinnavva who had predeceased Basanagouda. Defendant Nos.11 to 16 are the legal representatives of the said Chinnavva. Shivanagoudadefendant No.6 and Ninganagouda -defendant No.7 are the sons of Iranagouda second son of Dyavanagouda. Defendant No.17 to 20 are the collaterals of Basanagouda and they are not the contesting parties. Similarly, defendant Nos.6 to 8 are also not contesting parties, though they are collaterals. According to the plaintiffs, all the schedule properties except two properties, i.e., 22 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.19/1B and 1 acre in Sy.No.1 of Amblikoppa are all ancestral properties. These two properties in Sy.No.1 and 19/1B of Amblikoppa are stated to be the self -acquired properties of deceased Basanagouda. House property bearing VPC No.3 is also stated to be the self -acquired property of Basanagouda. Suit came to be filed for the relief of declaration of title that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of suit properties as he is the adopted son of deceased Basanagouda D. Patil and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule properties as described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. According to plaintiff No.1, he had been living in the house of Shivanagouda and enjoying the suit schedule property ever since his adoption and his adoption is evidenced through a registered adoption deed dated 03.05.1977. As a result of adoption, plaintiff No.1 is stated to have become the owner to an extent of half share in the entire property held by Basanagouda. It is his case that Basanagouda i.e., his adopted father has executed a Will in his favour through a registered Will in the year 1981. It is his case that on 07.10.1994, Basanagouda chose to execute another Will in favour of his genetic mother Fakiravva bequeathing 10 acres of land in Sy.Nos.10/A and 19/B of Amblikoppa village and that the said Will was executed by Basanagouda with prior intimation to him. As such, the defendants have nothing to do with the schedule properties and cannot interfere with either their title or possession. With these pleadings, a suit was filed on the ground that the defendants started interfering with their title and possession. The plaint was presented on 05.10.1998 and was registered as O.S.No.201/1998.