LAKSHMAMMA Vs. SOMBEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 3. The plaintiff had brought the present suit for declaration of his title over the suit lands and grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the same.

(2.) The plaintiff had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 17-5-1977 (Ex.P-1) executed by defendants 7 and 8. Defendant No. 7 has two wives viz., defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 8. He had only two daughters from the first wife defendant No. 3 who have been married to first and sixth defendants. The other defendants are their relations. According to the plaintiff, the necessity for filing the suit arose because defendants 1 to 6 were trying to disturb his possession over the suit properties.

(3.) Defendant No. 3, the first wife of defendant No. 7 by relying on the document Ex.D-2 dated 15-5-1970, described as a family arrangement, sought to resist the claim of the plaintiff by pleading that under the said document Ex.D-2 she has acquired a right of maintenance and therefore she cannot be dispossessed and thereby deprived of her right of maintenance. The lower Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has held that plaintiff has acquired good title under the sale deed, Ex.P-1, and he is in possession of the suit property. It has further been held that the alleged deed of family arrangement Ex.D-2, which is an unregistered document cannot be looked into as an evidence for determining the respective rights of the parties.