SIDHAROOD SWAMY MATH TRUST COMMITTEE HUBLI Vs. MALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are plaintiffs 1 and 2 in Case No. 128/1/1975 in the Court of the Munsiff, Yelburga. The respondents are defendant No. i's legal representatives and defendants No. 2 in the case. The subject matter of the suit consists of two lands S.No. 828 of Tadkal village and S.No. 2 of Talbal village, Yelburga Taluk. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the lands and for declaration that plaintiff No. 2 or in the alternative plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to get sale proceeds of the crop that stood on S. No. 2 amounting to Rs.1,000/- which amount is lying in court deposit and for mesne profits of the suit lands for the years 1956-57 and also for future mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit on 23-12-1959. The defendants preferred R.A. No. 2 of 1970 in the Court of the District Judge, Raichur. The District Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court on 15-7-1974. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The simple case of the plaintiffs is that Balawa wife of Basappa being the original owner who inherited the suit property from her mother Rudravva executed a registered will Ex.P. 5 in the year 1919 (5-10-1328 Fasli) bequeathing them in favour of plaintiff No. 1. She died issueless. After her death plaintiff No. 1 took over possession of the suit lands. Plaintiff No. 1 leased the suit lands to plaintiff No. 2 in 1953. Plaintiff No. 2 continued to be in possession thereof as tenant of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 secured right as a protected tenant and a certificate was accordingly issued to him in the year 1950. The defendants being in no way related to Balawa, have colluded with the village officer and got their names entered in the revenue records as khatedars. This had happened in the year 1951 or so. Even during that agricultural year, plaintiff No. 2 had cultivated the lands and got the right of harvest. The defendants obstructed the plaintiffs act. Because of that, proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the report of the concerned police officers, who apprehended that there was likelihood of breach of peace, were initiated by passing a preliminary order dated 9.11.1951. The standing crops were sold for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and that amount is in court deposit. Proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. were dropped on 31.3.1956. Parties were directed to approach the civil court to get their title established.

(3.) The defendants contended that the suit property was the ancestral property of the defendants. Dodbasappa husband of Balawa was the eldest uncle of the defendants. He has joint with them. The suit property was not the 'Stridhana' property of Balawa and therefore he did not inherit it from his mother Rudrawa. Gonappa and Honakerappa were the other brothers of Dodbasappa They were living jointly. After the death of Dodbasappa, Balawa's name came to be shown in the revenue records as if by way of transfer who had remained in possession of the suit property. The defendants inducted plaintiff No. 2 as their tenant from the year 1946 and he continued to be so on the land till 1951. The Will, relied upon by the plaintiffs is not genuine and had not been executed by Balawa. They raised another contentions on the question of limitation and so on, which, in my opinion are not necessary to nerrate, because, the suit has been instituted on 3.4.1957 within twelve years from 1951 during which period, plaintiff No. 2 admittedly was in actual possession of the suit lands.