TIPPANNA Vs. JALAL SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the second plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yadgir, in R. A. No. 69 of 1997, dated 7-3-2003 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahapur in o. S. No. 126 of 1989, dated 30-8-1997 and dismissing the suit of the second plaintiff.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.-Plaintiffs I and 2 filed the suit O. S. No. 26 of 1988 later numbered as o. S. No. 126 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), yadgir seeking for a judgment and decree declaring that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule land and for possession of the suit schedule property by dispossessing the defendants and for mesne profits and costs.

(3.) IT is averred in the plaint that plaintiff 1 is the absolute owner in possession of the land shown in the schedule which she inherited after the death of her father. The property is inherited from maternal side by plaintiff 1. Plaintiff 1 is aged and blind and taking the support of her husband's brother Thippanna-plaintiff 2 in managing the properties of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1 has also bequeathed the suit land in favour of plaintiff 2 by executing a Will dated 23-10-1973. Plaintiff 2 is the member of the family of plaintiff 1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sahukars of the Village. Plaintiff 1 has taken loan of Rs. 2,000/- on the next day of Ugadi of 1987 and has orally mortgaged the suit land to defendants 1 and 2 subject to the terms that they should enjoy the usufruct of one crop i. e. , in 1987-88 and thereafter give back the possession. The plaintiff had raised groundnut and bajra and harvested the same. Taking advantage of the helplessness of plaintiff behind her back, without her information and knowledge got their name mutated in the record of rights neither plaintiffs have sold an area of 5 acres 35 guntas of land shown in the schedule nor executed any document regarding sale of suit land in favour of defendants and plaintiffs came to know of the mutation only in the first week of March and she filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The defendants on the basis of wrong entries in the record of rights are asserting title and possession of the defendants over the suit schedule land is unlawful and that of a trespasser and wherefore the suit for the above said reliefs.