ARALAPPA Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment but two decrees, passed by the 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city in O. S. No. 10260/80 and O. S. No. 10261/80 after a common trial. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are refenred to as they are referred to in the original Suit.

(2.) O. S. NO. 10260/80 was filed by Arokyaswamy, the plaintiff, against the defendant Jagannath for the relief of declaration, that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the plaint schedule property, for permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. Similarly, o. S. No. 10261/80 is filed by Aralappa, the plaintiff against the very same Jagannath, the defendant far the same relief. The suit schedule property in these two suits is two different bits of land in the same survey number.

(3.) THE land bearing Sy. No. 47/2 of Nagawara Village, Kasaba hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 35 guntas each is the subject matter of both the suits. However, each one of them are claiming different portions is the said Sy. No. The case of the plaintiff in both the suits is that their father Chowrappa acquired Sy. No. 47/2 of nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 25. 4. 1960. It is his self acquired property. The said Chowrappa had three sons, including these two plaintiffs and they constituted a joint family. Under a registered Partition dated 20. 12. 1971, they effected partition of the joint family properties and the plaint schedule property measuring 35 guntas has fallen to the share of each of these plaintiffs. Though the partition took place in the year 1971, the revenue records continue in the name of their father. Ever since the date of partition, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They are the absolute owners. They have raised crops like Ragi, Avare etc. , and on the date of the suit, there was standing crops. The defendant who is an utter stranger to the property, on the morning of 16th November 1980 came near the land and attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also attempted to cut and remove the crop standing on the suit schedule property. But plaintiffs resisted the same. He asserted his title to the schedule property and proclaimed that he would remove the crop and dispossess the plaintiffs. As the defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs, they were constrained to file two separate suits for the aforesaid reliefs.