DHARMAPPA Vs. NEELAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF filed the above writ petition challenging the order dated 07.01.2015 made in M.A. No. 40/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur confirming the order dated 17.11.2012 made in O.S. No. 167/2012 on I.A. No. 1 by the Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur, rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction claiming that originally one Basappa Shivappa Vadeyarhalli, father of plaintiff purchased the suit property along with the father of the defendant jointly through a registered sale deed dated 13.06.1936 from one Malakappa Ningappa Karoor. Ever since the date of purchase, father of plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It is stated that father of defendant went to Byadagi and started residing there itself and also stated that father of the defendant was in need of money. Therefore, he took amount from the father of the plaintiff at regular intervals. After the death of father of plaintiff, present plaintiff came into possession of the suit property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of death of plaintiffs father to the knowledge of the defendant and the entire world.

(3.) THE defendant filed objections admitting that originally one Basappa Shivappa Vadeyarahalli, father of plaintiff and father of defendant have purchased the property jointly through registered sale deed. But they denied contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the property and other plaint averments. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession for more than 12 years as alleged. It is the specific case of the defendant that, from the date of purchase of the suit properties, father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant were in possession of the suit properties jointly and after the death of the defendant in 1996 in the state of jointness, the defendant came into possession of the suit property. It is stated that both parties are in joint possession of the suit property but the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue authorities got entered his name only in the revenue records by excluding the name of the defendant and claiming to be the owner of the suit property, however, he did not file any application and did not approach the court. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the application.