KALAMMA Vs. HONNE GOWDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that she and the first defendant are sisters. Their parents are Durgegowda and Honnamma. There are no other children. They are the only two children of their parents. The suit schedule property originally belonged to Durgegowda. The mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the first defendant and her husband on 19.07.1952. Certain obligations were incorporated to be performed by the husband of the first defendant and the first defendant herself. These obligations/contingencies were not adhered to. Thereafter, Honnamma cancelled the registered settlement deed on 04.11.1957 by executing a cancellation deed. The right given to the first defendant and her husband was extinguished.

(2.) HONNAMMA and the plaintiff succeeded to the property of their father. After the death of the father, the first defendant had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff namely, the sister on 19.08.1959, ostensibly on the ground that she did not have any children. By virtue of the same, the plaintiff became the owner of the said property. The first defendant did not retain any right nor was she in possession of the same.

(3.) THE defendants entered appearance. The fourth defendant, the brother of the purchaser of the property, and the second defendant filed their written statement. It was contended that the plaintiff and the defendant were sisters and daughters of Durgegowda and Honnamma. That after the death of Honnamma on acquiring the right, executed a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant. Non -performance of the conditions of the settlement was denied and the plaintiff would not be entitled for any right, title or interest. The first defendant has not retained any right over the suit schedule property was denied. That the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was valid. The second defendant on the strength of the sale deed approached the revenue authorities and got the katha changed in the family partition. In the family partition, the schedule property was allotted to the fourth defendant with the consent of the other parties. Hence, the katha was changed to the name of the fourth defendant. The second defendant is a bona fide purchaser. Hence it was pleaded that the suit be dismissed.