RAJAMMA AND ORS. Vs. B. RENUKA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal challenging the judgment and decree in R.A.No.27/2009 dated 1.2.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, where by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.358/1995 dated 22.11.2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nelamangala has been confirmed.

(2.) The appellants are the wife and children of B.P. Siddalingappa. B.P. Siddalingappa, the first plaintiff (since deceased by his L.Rs.) and B.P. Siddanna, father of the second plaintiff are brothers. Smt. Ammayamma is the younger sister of B.P. Siddanna and B.P. Siddalingappa. She was married to Rajashekharappa. The defendant is the son of Smt. Ammayamma and Rajashekharappa.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the year 1975, they borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/ - from the defendant to meet their family necessity. Since the plaintiffs could not repay the said amount, the defendant insisted for security for his debt. The defendant made the plaintiffs to execute a document staling that it is a deed of mortgage for securing loan of Rs.2,000/ -. The contents of the document was not read over to them. At no point of time, the defendant was in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners thereof. Plaintiffs received a notice from the Tahsildar, Nelamangala, informing them that the defendant has filed an application for change of RTC on the basis of the registered document dated 1.7.1976. They have never intended to sell the property in favour of the defendant. The amount of Rs.2,000/ - borrowed by them was refunded to the defendant with interest. The defendant began asserting title over the suit property as the plaintiffs relationship with the defendant strained and the market value of the property increased enormously. Therefore, they have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit schedule property and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. In the alternative, the plaintiffs have also sought for a declaration that the transaction dated 1.7.1976 is only a mortgage transaction and if the Court comes to a conclusion that the amount has not been paid, for redemption of the mortgage on payment of Rs.2,000/ - to the defendant.