CHELUVEGOWDA AND ORS. Vs. SIDDANAYAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O.S. No. 230/1992 filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties.

(2.) THEIR case is that the first defendant and one Cheluvegowda @ Thammaiah have sold the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs' father Sri Chikkaputtanayaka through a registered Sale Deed dated 10.11.1965 and put the plaintiffs' father in possession. The Revenue records were also transferred to the name of the father of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs' father died in the year 1977, leaving behind the plaintiffs and his eldest son Puttamadanayaka as his legal representatives. The plaintiffs, wife & children of Puttamadanayaka are now in absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Though the defendants have no right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property, the defendants started to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and on 10.09.1992 attempted to interfere with his possession. Hence, he filed the instant suit for permanent injunction. After issuance of notice, the defendants entered appearance. They denied the relationship between the plaintiffs and Chikkaputtanayaka and the missing of Puttamadanayaka. That even if the said Puttamadanayaka was missing, his wife and children could have been impleaded as parties. Hence, the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The alleged sale transaction was also denied. That Cheluvegowda did not have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property to sell the property and that he could not have executed the alleged sale deed. The revenue records relied on by the plaintiffs are all concocted. That the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of the defendants and they have never parted with the suit schedule property at any time. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues in O.S. No. 230/1992 for consideration:

(3.) WHETHER the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non -joinder of Chaluvegowda @ Thammaiah as a party to the present suit as alleged in para 8 of the Written Statement?