GANGADHARAPPA Vs. J.M. RAMAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant plaintiff No. 1 challenging the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the case before the trial Court are that the plaintiffs' grand father Gangadharappa was the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 39/1 of Mantapa village measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, described in the schedule to the plaint. Gangadharappa was having the only son by name Veeraswamappa @ Veeraswamy. The plaintiffs inherited the suit schedule property as they were the only legal heirs to their grandfather as well as their father after their demise. However, after the demise of Gangadharappa, till 1972, the name of Gangadharappa continued in the property extract. In the year 1972, the plaintiffs took steps to delete the name of their grand father and to enter their names in the suit schedule property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have no any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property created the document stating that the father of the plaintiffs Veeraswamy sold 9 guntas of the suit 'B' schedule property in favour of father of the 1st defendant under the registered sale deed in the year 1972 and thereafter, it is shown that father of the 1st defendant has also sold 9 guntas of property in favour of the 2nd defendant under the registered sale deed in the year 1996. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they continued to be the owners in possession of the suit schedule property but in spite of that, the 2nd defendant on the strength of the registered sale deed started to cause obstruction to the their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs had also got amended the plaint. They also claimed that they were the owners of the suit 'B' schedule property by way of adverse possession. Hence, they sought for decreeing the suit firstly for declaration that they are the owners of the suit 'A" schedule property measuring 1 acre 9 guntas and secondly, they have to be declared as owners by adverse possession to the extent of 9 guntas of suit 'B' schedule property and also sought permanent injunction against defendants.

(3.) AFTER considering the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues in the matter and ultimately, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The same was challenged by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also after re -appreciating the material on record, both oral and documentary, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -plaintiff No. 1 on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.