RANGAPPA AND ORS. Vs. NAGAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This is a appellants/plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2012 made in R.A.No.83/2011 on the file of the District Judge, Koppal,, dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay of 380 days in filing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 made in O.S.No.69/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 19.02.2005 executed by Commissioner appointed by the Court in favour of defendant-1 is not binding on the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, contending that the land bearing Sy.No.19/A, totally measuring 8 acres 30 guntas is situated at Allanagar village, Koppal taluk and the dispute is only in respect of 4 acres 15 guntas. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are children of defendant No.2, Plaintiff No.6 is wife of defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the children of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 purchased the suit property under registered sale deed dated 19.02.2005. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 2 and 3 have inherited the suit property from their father by name Badiyappa. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had addicted to bad habits like drinking of alcohol, gambling, etc and to meet out their bad habits the plaintiffs sold the land to an extent of 4 acres 15 guntas for a meager amount of Rs.18,000/- to defendant No.1 by colluding each other. It is further contended that as on the date of alleged sale deed, the plaintiffs were minors and the defendants did not care the rights of minor plaintiffs at the time of execution of alleged sale deed. Further the defendants Nos.2 and 3 have entered into an agreement for sale with defendant no.1 on 22.5.1992 under registered deed No.242/92-93. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed O.S.168/97 for specific performance and the suit was decreed and the said decree came to be final and also contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 without any legal necessity has entered into agreement of sale with the 1st defendant. Therefore, the sale deed executed by defendants is not binding on the plaintiffs, etc.