KUSHALAPPA GOWDA AND ORS. Vs. BABU GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiff is that his father Shivanna Gowda was a tenant under Srihari Kachinthaya in respect of Survey No. 56/2, measuring 0.65 cents and Survey No. 56/1 measuring 1 acre, 10 guntas of Noojibalthila Village. He had applied for grant of occupancy rights, which was granted by an order dated 17.07.1979. Form No. 10 was issued on 08.04.1980. After the grant of occupancy rights, Shivanna Gowda had taken another property which was jointly cultivated by his sons Babu Gowda and other children. Thereafter, Shivanna Gowda and his four sons entered into a registered partition dated 04.12.1981 and divided the leasehold lands. The 'A' schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff and his children jointly. The 'B' schedule property was jointly allotted to the share of Honnappa Gowda and his sons. The 'C' schedule property was allotted to another son Chennappa Gowda and his only son.

(2.) THE father of the plaintiff did not take any share in the properties under the partition deed. However, 'A' schedule property was kept for himself and he had filed a separate declaration and occupancy rights. Both the defendants tried to knock off the plaint 'A' schedule property. They concocted a Will said to be executed by Shivanna Gowda. The first defendant also got up a demand promissory note alleged to be executed by Shivanna Gowda for a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - on 06.01.1996. On coming to know about the alleged Will, Shivanna Gowda cancelled the same. Thereafter, Shivanna Gowda sold 'A' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - under a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1996. Hence, the plaintiff became the owner of 'A' schedule property. Subsequently, the name of the plaintiff was changed in the relevant documents.

(3.) AFTER purchasing the 'A' schedule property, the plaintiff demanded possession of the same from the defendants. They failed to handover the possession. A legal notice dated 19.02.2000 was issued. The defendants committed acts of damages to the suit schedule property. They destroyed the paddy crops and the areca plants. In the year 2004, damages were to an extent of Rs. 6,000/ - to the areca plants and Rs. 2,000/ - to the paddy crops. Since the defendants failed to handover W schedule property, the instant suit was filed seeking for a decree of possession, damages caused to the areca and paddy crop and future mesne profits from the date of the suit till delivery of possession of the suit schedule property.