RAMESH Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2009 in RA No.32 of 2008 on the file of Fast Track Court No.I, Gulbarga, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 12/12/2007 in OS No.31 of 1998 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gulbarga, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case as contended by the plaintiff are that, the plaintiff is the adopted son of one Sanganna Athanoor, who died leaving behind his wife-Gangabai. Thereafter, the plaintiff was adopted by said Gangabai on 30/4/1968 and Deed of Adoption was registered on 12/1/1972 at Gulbarga. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the mother of the plaintiff had Sreedhan properties and out of those funds, the mother of the plaintiff had shared the funds with the father of the defendant No.1-Gundappa, to purchase the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, the mother of the plaintiff is also having a share in the suit schedule property and has invested her money for construction of building in Plot Nos.79 and 80 and therefore, it is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, Partition Deed dtd. 9/3/1983, made in respect of the subject matter of the suit, is not binding on the plaintiff. It also contended in the plaint that, the mother of the plaintiff had filed suit in OS No.25 of 1978 against the father of defendant No.1 and in the said proceedings the said Gundappa had admitted in the written statement relating to the transaction made between himself and the mother of the plaintiff and therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that, the said admission made by the father of the defendant No.1 is binding on the defendants. It is also stated in the plaint that, in earlier suit, OS No.337 of 1972 between the mother of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant No.1, where the decree is passed and the said judgment and decree is binding on the said Gundappa and consequently on the defendant No.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff has sought for relief of declaration with possession and consequential relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.