KARAVEERAYYA AND ORS. Vs. ANDANAPPA GURUBASAPPA KADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2011 made in R.A. No. 62/2010 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gadag, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2010 made in O.S. No. 4/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Mundargi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property.

(2.) The respondent who is the plaintiff in the Trial Court had filed the original suit for declaration against the defendants contending that the plaintiff is the permanent resident of Mundargi and he has purchased the agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 59/1A measuring 5 acres 17 guntas situated within the limits of Hesarur of Mundargi Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 16.01.1984 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 12,000/ - and on the very same day, he was put in possession and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. During the last week of December 1996, these defendants openly proclaimed that plaintiff is not an owner of the suit land and they have not executed any sale deed in favour of him. Furthermore, they are in possession of the suit land, with these words they try to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 44/2006 for permanent injunction which was dismissed and therefore he filed the suit for declaration of title.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement and denied the entire plaint averments and admitted that suit property R.S. No. 59/1A measuring 5 acres 17 guntas was executed in favour of plaintiff in the year 1984, but it was not absolute sale deed. Previously plaintiff, his brothers and his father were businessmen and they had Dallali shop in APMC yard. Always the defendants and their father had to sell their agricultural produce in their shop for which they had some money transaction with the father of the plaintiff Meantime, in the year 1984 defendants were in need of Rs. 12,000/ - for which the sale deed was executed as a security till repayment of the loan amount, but possession was and is with the defendants and at no point of time possession is handed over. Said transaction was made by the father of the plaintiff, but disputed land was registered in the name of the plaintiff. In order to repayment of the said loan amount, the defendants have executed lease deed in favour of one Basavantappa Yarashi for five years in the year 1995 for the valuable consideration of Rs. 25,000/ -. On the very day the particular land was hand over to Basavantappa Yarashi in his possession and for his personal cultivation. On the very day in the presence of elderly persons, loan amount was returned to the plaintiff, but till today he has not relinquished the land in favour of them. Further, the plaintiff already filed suit in O.S. No. 44/2006 for permanent injunction which was dismissed on 25.01.2007. Thereafter, the suit in O.S. No. 4/2008 was filed which is not maintainable etc. Therefore, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.