SHANTHAMMA, Vs. BIPIN B PATEL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's regular first appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of title and for injunction.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(3.) THE subject matter of the suit is land bearing Sy.No.4/P -18 measuring 4 acres 35 guntas situated at Kurubarahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore and Sy.No.4/P -2 measuring 0.07 guntas situated at Alanahalli village, Mysore Taluk, in all 5 acres, which is more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the schedule property. The said land was purchased by Smt.Leelavathi, wife of Sri.T.C.Patel, the father of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1974 for valuable consideration. The case of the plaintiff is, since the date of purchase till her death, she was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. After her death, the plaintiff, who is her daughter is in possession of the same. All the Revenue records stand in the name of her mother Smt.Leelavathi Patel. Smt.Leelavathi Patel had no source of income. Her husband Sri.T.C.Patel was running Provision Stores and was doing wholesale business in food grains and was having very good source of income. Therefore, he purchased the suit property in the name of his wife. Both Leelavathi and Patel are dead leaving behind the plaintiff as their only legal heir. She filed an application before the Tahsildar for change of katha from her mother's names to her name on 01.06.2006 in respect of the plaint schedule property. He issued notice to the plaintiff on 08.09.2006 seeking Encumbrance Certificate, Sale deed and sketch. The plaintiff complied with all the requirements. All of a sudden, one H.N.Ramatheertha filed objections and stated that the plaint schedule property was sold to the defendant through a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1975. Plaintiff was shocked to know that even though her mother Leelavathi Patel was not having absolute right over the property, she sold the same to the defendant. Hence, the said sale is not binding on the plaintiff and that she is entitled to half share in the plaint schedule property. It was further contented that the signature on the sale deed looks like that of Smt.Leelavathi Patel but it is a fabricated document. It creates doubt as to why defendant kept quiet from the year 1975 till this day. Even if the sale deed is in existence, it does not curtail the plaintiff's share in the plaint schedule property. It was further contended that the defendant has never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and it is to be noted that why the defendant has kept quiet from 1975 to 2006. If really he has purchased the suit schedule property, he should have got the katha changed in his name and taken possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, she was constrained to file a suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and further declare that the sale deed dated 15.03.1975 is concocted document, null and void and for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.