SOPAN Vs. TIPPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS of an original suit in O.S. 50/00 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Bhalki, have approached this court by filing the appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. since they are aggrieved by dismissal of their suit filed for the reliefs of title and permanent injunction.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein is the sole defendant in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking in the trial court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shivanand Patil has vehemently argued that the trial court has adopted a wrong approach to the real state of affairs and has not assessed the evidence on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities. It is argued that the trial court has failed to take into account that Shivanna had no absolute right to alienate the property, much less through an agreement of sale. It is further argued that when the entire land in Survey No. 103 was joint family property of the sons of Beerappa, he could not have sold 2.02 acres with specific boundaries as he did not know which part of the property would fall to his share. It is argued that the judgment and decree are opposed to law, facts and probabilities. It is argued that the judgment passed in O.S. 5/79 does not bind the plaintiffs 6 to 9 who were not parties to the said judgment and decree. It is further argued that this aspect of the matter has been ignored to the trial court.