JANAVVA Vs. PANDAPPA DHARMAPPA SAVUKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal filed u/S 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur in O.S. No. 59/1999. Appellants are the plaintiffs in the said suit. Respondents were the defendants in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

(2.) FIRST plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff and defendants are the own brothers of the first plaintiff. Originally she chose to file a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of 4 items of schedule lands as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. Subsequently, alternative relief was inserted in the plaint on the strength of order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. According to the plaintiffs, defendants are brothers and first plaintiff had lot of trust and confidence on them. According to the first plaintiff, the suit schedule properties were purchased by her for a consideration of Rs.25,000/ - on 18.04.1973 and since then she has been in possession of the schedule property. According to her, in the year 1975 she get a bore well dug in the schedule property and 10 HP well motor has been fixed to the said bore well. The defendants were assisting the plaintiffs in conducting agricultural operations. Taking advantage of the implicit faith and confidence reposed on them, the defendants have colluded with each other and have taken some deeds in respect of these lands by misrepresentation. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants wanted the first plaintiff to subscribe her signatures to some documents for obtaining loan from banks in her favour. It is in this regard she was taken to Sub Registrar's Office in the year 1981 and she was asked to put few signatures on certain documents in the Sub Registrar's Office and that she did not know as to what those documents contained. It is her case that she came to know a few days prior to the filing of the suit that the defendants have managed to get certain sale deeds in their favour on 24.02.1981 and 20.09.1982. Those sale deeds are alleged to be the outcome of fraud played on her and hence they are null and void.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, possession has not been handed over to the defendants at any point of time and that she is still in possession of the same. According to her, the sale deeds relied upon by the defendants do not bind her in any manner and that they will have to be declared as null and void. These plaintiffs objected to file a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Subsequently, suit was got converted into one for possession alternatively.