KALLAPPA RAMA LONDA Vs. SHIVAPPA NAGAPPA APARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 1983 is filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff in the trial Court against the judgment and decree dt. 26-7-1983 passed by the Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C. Athani, in R.A. No. 100 of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree dt. 25-9-1978 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in O. S. No. 261 of 1977. Regular Second Appeal No. 705 of 1983 is filed by the appellant who was the defendant in the trial -Court against the judgment and decree dt. 26-7-1983 passed by the Civil Judge-cum-J. M. F. C. Athani, in R.A. No. 101 of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree dt. 25-9-1978 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in O.S. No. 260 of 1977.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of the case.

(3.) One Shivappa hack filed a suit in O.S. No. 260 of 1977 against this appellant for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from obstructing him with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the ground that these properties along with some other properties belonged to Appanna who died leaving behind him his widow Krishnabai, a son Shankar and daughter-in-law Neelavva and Shankar also died subsequently leaving behind two widows i.e., his own widow Neelavva and his widowed mother Krishnabai. Krishnabai got the suit schedule property by way of maintenance from her daugher-in-law Neelavva in the year 1935 after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and by virtue of Section 14(1) she became the absolute owner and thereafter she has gifted the properties in favour of the plaintiff Shivappa and he is in possession of the same. O.S. No. 261 of 1977 is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and for possession and for injunction not to obstruct his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties or in the alternative for posession of the suit properties on the main averments that the said suit properties were ginen to mother-in-law of Neelavva for maintenance only and she had no right to alienate those properties and the alienations if made by her during her lifetime will not survive beyond her lifetime and the properties will revert back to Neelavva and Neelavva had sold these properties to the appellant Kallappa. Both the suits were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded and thereafter the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant and decreed the suit of the respondents. The appellant was aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court and hence he preferred Regular Appeals against the judgment and decrees of the trial Court and both the Regular Appeals also came to be decided against the appellant and hence these Appeals.