MUNIANJANAPPA Vs. RAMESH GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.742/2022 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Nelamangala, (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') have filed this appeal challenging an order dtd. 22/1/2024 passed therein by which, an application filed by them under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code to restrain the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties was rejected.

(2.) The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

(3.) The suit in 742/2022 was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and to declare that the sale deed dtd. 11/11/1964 executed by their grand father Sri.Nagaiah was forged, concocted and not binding upon the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendant No.1 and his agents from interfering with their possession. The suit property was land bearing Sy.No.18/5 measuring 04 acres situated at Kuduregere village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the grand sons of Nagaiah who had two wives named Venkatamma and Lakshmamma. The said Nagaiah had two sons named Doddaramaiah and Chikkaramaiah from his first wife Venkatamma and Puttaiah and Annaiahappa from the second wife Smt. Lakahmamma. The father of the plaintiffs Sri Doddramaiah had seven children named, Munianjanappa, Ramachandrappa, Naryanappa, Jayalakshmamma, Parvathamma, Gangamma and Savithramma. The plaintiffs claimed that they came to know that an extent of 04 acres in Sy.No.18 was cultivated by Nagaiah and later a Saguvali Chit was issued to him on 17/2/1965. They claimed that the children of Nagaiah from his second wife were not in good terms with them and that they had fought an unsuccessful legal battle against them. Thereafter, they alleged that they made enquiries in the department of revenue and gathered information that an extent of 04 acres was granted to Sri. Nagaiah and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. They claimed that after the death of Nagaiah, the said land was in possession and enjoyment of Nagaiah's second wife and her children. The plaintiffs claimed that they were kept in the dark about the property and hence they were not aware of the existence of the property. They claimed that after they obtained the documents they came to know that the father of the defendant No.1 had created a forged document namely a sale deed dtd. 11/11/1964 allegedly executed by Nagaiah, though Saguvali Chit was issued on 17/2/1965. Therefore, they contended that the sale deed was forged and fabricated and the person who had affixed the signature to the sale deed dtd. 11/11/1964 was not Nagaiah, but some other person. They claimed that Nagaiah died on 7/5/1975 and even after his death, the defendant No.1 and his father did not get their names entered in the revenue records. They claimed that in the year 1983- 1984 for the first time the name of the father of the defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records based on the sale deed dtd. 11/11/1964. They further contended that the sale deed dtd. 11/11/1964 was fraudulent, since saguvali chit was granted to Nagaiah only in the year 1965 and hence the sale deed dtd. 11/11/1964 was forged and fabricated. Therefore, they sought for the aforesaid reliefs. Along with the plaint, they filed an application for an order of injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. The Trial Court granted an order of statusquo till the disposal of the application.