AMMANAMMA Vs. THIMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants -plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Srirangapatna dated 25.11.2005 passed in R.A. No. 20/1998, by which, the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1998 passed in O.S. No. 4/1993 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), K.R. Pet, dismissing the suit, has been confirmed in the said appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellants -plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of title to the suit properties as owners in possession and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents and servants from entering upon and interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are the four items of dry lands as mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 in the schedule to the plaint. Further averments in the plaint are that the suit properties have fallen to the share of the plaintiffs in a division which took place about 23 years back between the first plaintiffs husband, the first defendant and his brothers as these properties are ancestral joint family properties and since then, plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties as owners without interruption. As the defendants and others gave trouble to the plaintiffs taking advantage of their inabilities and poverty, to enjoy the schedule properties peacefully, plaintiffs have approached an Advocate in the month of November 1979 who has wrongly advised them to file a suit for general partition. Accordingly, they filed the suit in O.S. No. 217/1979 on the file of the Munsiff Court at K.R. Pet and said suit was dismissed, against which, they preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 10/1982 which was dismissed and then they preferred R.S.A. No. 270/1984 before this Court and the same was also dismissed confirming the judgments of both the Courts below. After the dismissal of the said R.S.A. by this Court, the defendants who are inimical with the plaintiffs are trying to interfere and enter upon the plaint schedule properties with an evil intention to knock off the same since the last week of August 1992. The plaintiffs being ladies have no money and men of their own to protect their right irk respect of the suit schedule properties, have filed the suit for the above said reliefs.

(3.) ON the basis of the said pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: