MANOHAR AND ORS. Vs. RAJU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unsuccessful plaintiffs', regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10th July, 2014 made in R.A. No. 437/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court -II and Additional District Judge, Belagavi confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2006 made on O.S. No. 662/2002 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Belgavi in O.S. No. 662/2002 dismissing the suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

(2.) THE appellants, who were the plaintiffs before the trial Court, filed a suit for the declaration contending that the sale deed dated 5.6.1970 is not binding on their shares in the suit schedule property and consequently declare that the agreement of sale dated 17.9.2002 alleged to have been entered into between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as null and void and the same is not binding upon their shares. They further prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction contending that the suit schedule property bearing Gram Panchayat No. 53/A measuring 27 feet, East to West and 180 feet North to South situated at Marihal, Taluk and District Belagavi was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. It is their further case that they have got their undivided share in the suit schedule property along with their father, that there was no partition by metes and bounds in the suit property; that their father had died; that they are in actual possession and wahiwat of the suit property and they are using it since their forefathers by way of succession for storing the cow dung, waste materials and stones which belonged to them and hence, they are in possession of the suit property till today; that the defendants, who are in no way concerned with the suit property, came to the suit property on 21.9.2002 and started removing the stones and other waste materials collected by the plaintiffs and also disturbed their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants denied the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

(3.) WHETHER the defendant No. 2 proves that, as per agreement of sale deed dated 17 -9 -2002 he is in possession of the suit property?