KRISHNA Vs. RAMAKRISHNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 made in R.A. No. 418/2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Honavar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2001 made in O.S. No. 22/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Honavar, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 12,600/ - as annuity for 12 years from 1987 -88 to 1998 -99 with 6% interest from the date of decree till the date of realization of the decreetal amount.

(2.) The respondents - plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs. 14,400/ - being the annuity amount from the defendant from 1987 -88 to 1998 -99 payable on 30th Maghbahul every year as per Hindu Calendar month at the rate of 3 khandag (1 1/2 quintal) of rice every year totally 18 quintals for 12 years at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per quintal and charge of the schedule properties. It was also contended that the suit schedule properties belongs to one Ramappa Timappa @ Atmaram Yogeshwar. He executed a gift deed dated 12.06.1919 in favour of Ganapathi Rama Hegde and Timmanna Rama Hegde. There was a condition that the gift deed to pay annuity every year 3 khandag (1 1/2 quintal) of rice by the 30th day of Maghbahul as per Hindu Calendar for the month to Smt. Parvathi, the daughter of said Ramappa Timmappa till her death and after her death to her male descendants. Thereafter, all those properties charged with annuity for being purchased by one Rayappa Krishna Shanbag now deceased. Thereafter, the right in the properties charged with annuity had been sold to the defendant. Therefore, along with the properties, permanent charge of annuity created over the suit schedule properties had also transferred to the defendant. Since then, defendant is having possession, use and enjoyment of the said properties. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay annuity to the plaintiffs. The right to receive annuity over the suit schedule property has been transferred from Parvathi, after her demise to her son Ganapathi Subray Bhat and the Ganapathi Subray Bhat sold those properties along with the right to recover annuity sold to the father of the plaintiffs by name Parameshwar Ramakrishna Hegde by way of registered sale deed dated 17.08.1966. On the death of Parameshwar Ramakrishna Hegde, the plaintiffs and her children being natural heirs of Parameshwar Ramakrishna Hegde have acquired that right to recover the annuity by way of inheritance. Therefore, the right in the properties charged with annuity had been sold to the defendant. Therefore, along with the properties, permanent charge of annuity was created over the suit schedule properties has also transferred to the defendant. Since then, the defendant is having possession, use of the said properties. Hence, defendant was liable to pay annuity to the plaintiffs etc. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit.

(3.) The defendant filed the written statement and contended that suit filed by the plaintiffs is false and frivolous and vexatious and in order to harass the defendant, the plaintiffs have filed this false suit and it is not tenable in the eye of law and denied the allegations made in para 2 of the plaint and contended that the right of annuity is personal right and it cannot be alienated, as contended by the plaintiffs in their plaint. Therefore, he contended that the plaintiffs have no right to recover this annuity and denied all the allegations made in para 3 of the plaint and contended that after the death of father Parameshwar Ramakrishna Hegde, plaintiffs have acquired the same right over the suit schedule properties. The defendant also contended that the alleged sale deed dated 17.08.1966 which did not gave right to recover the annuity to one Parameshwar Ramakrishna Hegde and after his death, the right to recover the annuity has been inherited to his sons, the present plaintiffs. The defendant has contended that alleged sale deed dated 17.08.1966 itself is null and void and also contended that some of the properties having charges of annuity are with the father of the plaintiffs himself. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs claiming full annuity is not maintainable etc.