MONNANDA NANAIAH Vs. BALLADICHANDA CAVERIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendants 3 and 8 in O.S.No. 16 of 1970 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Coorg, Mercara. Rcspondent-1 is the plaintiff and the remaining respondents are the rest of the defendants. The suit property is Jamma wet land measuring 3.75 acres in S.No. 56 of Kukloor village, in Virajpet Nad.

(2.) The facts are that this land originally belonged to one Cariappa. Cariappa had two sons by name Devaiah and Aiyappa. There was partition between Devaiah and Aiyappa and this land fell to the share of Devaiah. Thereafter Devaiah expired in the year 1943 leaving behind him only his daughter the plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 8 are the sons of Aiyappa. Defendants 2 to 7 also belong to Monnanda family i.e., parental family of the plaintiff. Defendant-1 belongs to one Karnanda family. After the death of Deviah, the property devolved on the plaintiff. She enjoyed it as owner. On 20-4-1950 the plaintiff mortgaged this property in favour of defendant-1 by a registered deed Ext. D-4, equal to Exihibit P-1 (certified copy). This was usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant-1 stipulating that he should pay himself the mortgage money out of the rent and profits of the land enjoying the same for 12 years. On 28-4-1950 defendant-1 assigned his right to defendant-2 and husband of defendant-7 by executing a registered deed as per Exhibit P-2. The plaintiff mortgaged this property to defendant-1 to secure money for her marriage. She got married. On 15-3-1952 defendants 3 and 8 namely, the appellants, paid the mortgage amount to defendant-2 and husband of defendant-7 and secured possession of the property and also the original deeds. An endorsement as per Exhibit P-2(b) was made on Exhibit P-2, the deed of assignment, executed by defendant-1 in favour of defendant-2 and husband of defendant-7. Defendants 3 and 8 continued to be in possession of this property. On 24-6-1963 the plaintiff issued a legal notice to defendants 1,2,7 and 3 stating that when she went to get the land cultivated she was obstructed without there being any right title and interest in the said persons and called upon them to hand over possession of the land. A reply as per Exhibit D-2 dated 1-7-1963 was sent to her. Thereafter the plaintiff filed this simple suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and possession of the suit property. This suit was contested on various grounds, but mainly on the ground that on the plaintiff getting married, she lost her right to this property as per the customary law of Kodava Community and defendants 3 and 8 being reversioners they had title to the suit property. In other words, defendants 3 and 8 defended their possession by putting forth their own title on the basis of the aforementioned contention.

(3.) The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal by the plaintiff in R.A.No. 8 of 1974, the District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.