GADIGI SIDDALINGAVVA Vs. MANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/3/2016 passed in RA.No.9/2014 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli and the judgment and decree dtd. 16/3/2013 passed in O.S.No.112/2006 by the learned Civil Judge, Harapanahalli.

(2.) For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

(3.) The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and possession of suit 'A' schedule property and for the permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and their mother Ujjamma @ Ujjawwa, are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties were purchased by one Channabasappa i.e. plaintiff's father in the name of his wife Ujjamma under the registered sale deed. After the demise of Channabasappa, the plaintiffs and their mother are enjoying the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and their mother are living in a joint family. The defendant is the relative of the plaintiffs. The defendant married to one Bharamanagoudar of Maadihalli village. The defendant's husband passed away after six months from the date of marriage. The elders of the village and father of the defendant requested Channabasappa to provide a land to the defendant for cultivation and to maintain her life. The plaintiff's father had provided a shelter to the defendant in his house. The plaintiffs father consented to give 1.22 acres of land i.e., 'A' schedule property to the defendant as temporary arrangement. The defendant started to cultivate 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs and their family members were not in a good relationship with the defendant. They requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit 'A' schedule property. The defendant behind the back of the plaintiffs got entered her name in the revenue records of the suit 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs approached the defendant's son and requested to vacate and hand over the suit schedule properties. The defendant's son denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties. Hence, a cause of action aroses for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and possession.