GOPALAPPA Vs. RANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/12/2020 passed in R.A.No.267/2016, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dtd. 28/3/2016 passed in O.S.No.77/2013, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from one B.M. Siddalingappa of Mathodu village on 23/4/1986. Since the date of sale deed, the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit schedule property in their own right as owners and paying the land revenue to the Government. The RTC of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of plaintiff No.1. The suit property originally belongs to one B.M. Siddalingappa, who has executed agreement in favour of one D.L. Gurusiddappa. The said B.M. Siddalingappa failed to execute a registered sale deed as per the agreement. Hence, D.L.Gurusiddappa filed O.S.No.35/1985 for specific performance. The said suit came to be compromised, wherein Siddalingappa agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of D.L. Gurusiddappa or to the person showed by the said D.L. Gurusiddappa. Accordingly, on 23/4/1986, B.M.Siddalingappa executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. After purchase, the plaintiffs planted 62 coconut trees in 2 acres on the western side and eastern 1 acre is dry land. The defendants have no right or interest over the suit schedule property and are unnecessarily interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. Even though the village elders advised to the defendants, they are not ready to hear the advise. The cause of action for the suit arose on last week of February 2013 and hence, filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants appeared through their advocate. The defendant No.2 filed written statement, which was adapted by defendant Nos.1 and 3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have contended that the plaint averments has to be proved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fee. The suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Now the plaintiffs by creating false boundaries filed the false suit. As per the defendants, defendant No.1's husband Marappa, defendant No.2 Rangappa and defendant No.3's husband Chikkanna were the owners of 3 acres in Sy.No.3/3, which was granted to them by the Tahasildar on 28/5/1963. Now, the said Sy.No.3/3 is changed as Sy.No.31. Now they are the owners of the said Sy.No.31 measuring 3 acres. The plaintiffs with an intention to grab the property have filed this false suit and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.