B.M. ERAMUDDAIAH AND ORS. Vs. RAMALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 241/1998. The plaintiff had instituted the suit contending that he had purchased the suit schedule item Nos. 1 and 2 properties from late Kampalaramaiah, son of Kampalaiah i.e., the father of defendants No. 1, 2 and husband of defendant No. 3. The purchase was claimed to have made for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1977 and it is contended that he has been in possession and enjoyment thereafter. A suit in O.S. No. 250/1977 was filed by the plaintiff herein against his vendor seeking for injunction to protect his possession which was decreed. The defendants herein i.e. children and wife of vendor thereafter filed a suit in O.S. No. 12/1978 seeking for declaration that the properties bearing Sy. Nos. 69/2 and 64 are ancestral and joint family properties of defendant and Kampalaramaiah. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 30.08.1980, but was however reversed and decreed in R.A. No. 80/1980. The plaintiff herein had assailed the same in R.S.A. No. 731/1983 before this Court. This Court by the judgment dated 20.08.1997 reserved the liberty to the plaintiff herein to file a suit for partition and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has accordingly filed the instant suit seeking that the partition be effected among the defendants and late Kampalaramaiah and allot the suit schedule items No. 1 and 2 properties to late Kampalaramaiah and confirm the sale deed dated 14.09.1977 in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE defendants on appearance filed the written statement disputing the claim made by the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff that the suit schedule items No. 1 and 2 properties were purchased under the sale deed dated 14.09.1977 is denied. The defendants have denied knowledge of the suit in O.S. No. 250/1977 filed by the plaintiff, but they admit about the suit in O.S. No. 12/1978 filed by them and the same culminating in R.S.A. No. 731/1983 which was disposed with the observation permitting the filing of partition suit. The claim that Sy. No. 62 was inadvertently mentioned instead of Sy. No. 69/1 in the sale deed is denied. It is further contended that the suit is barred by time and the plaintiff is not entitled to any share as the defendant has perfected the title by adverse possession. On the death of the first and third defendants, the written statement has been amended and the second defendant has claimed exclusive right in respect of the suit schedule properties. The defendant therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on taking note of the rival contentions has framed as many as nine issues for consideration, which read as hereunder:

(3.) IN order to discharge the burden cast on the parties, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. -1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws. -2 and 3 and relied upon the documents marked as Exhs. -P1 to P10. The defendant examined her P.A. Holder as D.W. -1 and relied upon documents at Exhs. -D1 to D16.