GOWRAMMA AND ORS. Vs. VENKATAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that she is the wife of late Dasaiah, who was the son of late Hotte @ Thimma and Smt.Boramma. late Hotte @ Thimma had three sons viz., Thimmaiah @ Kundaiah, Uli @ Venkataiah and Dasaiah (the husband of plaintiff). The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Hotte @ Thimma and after his death, Dasaiah and his brothers got partitioned the parties. The suit properties fell to the share of Dasaiah and he was in possession of the same. The defendants were strangers to the family of Hotte @ Thimma, colluding with revenue authorities got concocted the revenue records in their name and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur as the Tahsildar confirmed his previous order after remand, she again filed R.A. No. 55/2011, which is pending. Hence, the instant suit was filed for a declaration that she is absolute owner and for permanent injunction.

(2.) On service of summons, defendants entered appearance and denied the case of the plaintiff. He further contended that originally, the suit properties were ancestral properties of Ponnapetaiah, Mudalaiah, Yalakkaiah and Venkataiah, who are the sons of Maribasavaiah, the ancestor of late Dasaiah and the defendants. They got divided the suit properties about 40 years ago and they have been enjoying their respective share as absolute owners. Since Hotte @ Thimma was the elder male member of the family, khatha continued in his name even though Dasaiah and defendants have been enjoying their respective shares from long back. After knowing this fact, the defendants petitioned the Tahsildar for change of khatha in terms of their possession. After enquiry, an order was passed effecting change of khatha in their respective names. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. After enquiry, the Tahsildar confirmed the earlier order. Again, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the same was allowed. The defendants preferred a Revision before the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. The plaintiff by suppressing this fact has filed a false suit to knock off the entire suit properties.

(3.) Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: