ADAVEESHAIAH Vs. H.K. RANGASWAMAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that one Kari Ranganaika is their father, who had a brother by name Chikkarangaiah. Chikkarangaiah had a son by name Thopaiah. Kari Ranganaika, Chikkarangaiah and Thopaiah lived together and the suit property was their ancestral joint family property. Kari Ranganaika, Chikkarangaiah and Thopaiah having died, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs to the suit property; that the defendant, after the death of plaintiffs' father Kari Ranganaika, forcibly ousted the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and took possession of the same; that the defendant denied their title over the suit schedule property and refused to hand over possession of the same. The defendant had entered his name in the katha and pahani in collusion with the revenue officials. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was also filed questioning the entering of the name of defendant. On denial of the defendant acceding to the plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, the instant suit was filed for declaration and possession.

(2.) ON service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and denied the plaint averments. He contends that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and is barred by limitation. That the suit property belongs to one Chikkaseebaiah and his brother Kempaiah and the original owners have executed the registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of his father Doddananjappa on 9.9.1967; that the vendors of his father have sold the suit schedule property for Rs. 500/ - and put his father in possession of the same ever since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; that the plaintiffs, taking advantage of the situation are projecting themselves as the legal representatives of one Thopaiah and attempting to knock off the properties; that the defendant's father's vendors Chikkaseebaiah and Kempaiah belonged to Adi -Karnataka community by caste and plaintiffs belong to Naika community. They are no way concerned with one another. Plaintiffs have concocted a false story and presented the suit.

(3.) IN support of the case, plaintiff No. 1 was examined as PW -1 and four other witnesses and marked 16 documents. Issues 1, 2, 3 and 5 were held in negative and issue No. 4 was held in affirmative. Suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.