SHARANAPPA S/O PEDDAPPA Vs. MALLANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the regular second appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant No.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 passed in R.A.No.58/2014 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, Kalaburagi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 passed in O.S.No.208/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chittapur.

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant No.1 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents-plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 on admission.

(3.) The learned counsel for appellant-defendant No.1 during the course of arguments made the submission that though it is the contention of defendant No.1 that in the partition between the father of the plaintiffs and father of the defendants the property in dispute was fallen to the share of father of the plaintiffs and he executed consent deed giving the property to the defendants father. The learned counsel submitted that even though such contention is raised firstly regarding the said partition there is no issue framed by the Courts below. Secondly, he mainly contended that the very defence of defendant No.1 that he got the property through the consent deed said to have been executed by father of the plaintiffs. There ought to have been separate and specific issue on this pleading. But looking to the issues framed by the Trial Court, the confusion has been created with regard to the said aspect and in this connection the learned counsel draw the attention of this Court more particularly issue No.4 and submitted that the said issue has been mixed up with the plea of the adverse possession it will give an impression that whether defendant No.1 become the owner by adverse possession on the basis of the consent deed. Hence, it is misleading the parties before the Trial Court. Apart from that, he also raised the contention that when the plaintiffs have sought the declaratory decree unless and until they produced their title documents the Courts below should not have decreed the suit even for the declaratory relief without any such documents, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, he submitted that the substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal, which are to be considered in this appeal. Hence, the appeal may be admitted.