N B DEVAMMA Vs. KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A.No.22/2005 dated 04.03.2008 on the file of the District Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri.

(2.) THE appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.74/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madikeri and the respondents were the defendants. The plaintiff filed the above suit for a declaration that she is the absolute owner of 'A' schedule properties for possession of 'B' schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaint 'A' schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties had fallen to her share in a compromise entered into between the parties in R.A.No.25/87 dated 29.01.1990, on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu. 'A' schedule properties are landed properties. It is further contended that 'B' schedule property is a small thatched hut with mud walls situated in Item No.1 of 'A' schedule properties. It is further contended that Adkada Thammanna was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. He had two wives. His first wife was Pachu and the plaintiff is the daughter of Smt.Pachu. After the death of Smt.Pachu, he married Smt.Muthakka. The defendants are the children born to Adkada Thammanna through Muthakka. After the death of Adkada Thammanna, Smt.Muthakka and her children continued to live in 'B' schedule property. The defendants were interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property. Therefore, she filed the above suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property. She also sought for possession of 'B' schedule property.

(3.) THE defendants have opposed the suit by filing the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed relevant issues. The parties have let in evidence. The trial Court has decreed the suit insofar as 'A' schedule property is concerned. The suit was dismissed in respect of 'B' schedule property. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.A.No.22/05 was also dismissed. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: