R. ESHWARAPPA Vs. MARUTHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal came to be admitted on 19.12.2011 to consider following substantial questions of law.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri K. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate appearing for appellant and Sri Rajendra S, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri S.V. Prakash for respondent No. 1. Vide order dated 13.02.2014 service of notice to respondents -2(a) to (d) has held sufficient and appeal against respondent -3 has been dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2014. Parties are referred to as per their rank in trial Court. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this second appeal can be crystallized as under:

(3.) ON service of suit summons, defendants -1 and 2 appeared through their Advocates and written statement came to be filed by second defendant denying the averments made in plaint and it was contended by second defendant that he in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. It was also contended that Smt. Yellamma - vendor of plaintiff had no right, title or interest over suit schedule property and she was not in possession of the same at any point of time and hence, she could not have conferred any right or title over suit property in favour of plaintiff nor delivered possession. Even otherwise, it was contended that sale deed under which plaintiff claim title would not confer any right in favour of plaintiff and it was asserted that second defendant was in possession of suit schedule property. First defendant adopted the written statement filed by second defendant.