SAMPA AND ORS. Vs. RAJEEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are preferred against a common judgment and decree dated 6.4.2011 in R.A. No. 20/2007 and R.A. No. 142/2006 on the file of Fast Track Court, Karakala.

(2.) The parties are referred to their ranks before the trial court: -

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 filed written statement of objections. The case of the defendants is that they are not in occupation of the schedule property as a licencee under the plaintiffs nor they are in permissive possession of the same as contended by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that they are in occupation of the schedule property as its owner and they succeeded to the schedule property after the death of Sadananda -husband of the first defendant and father of other defendants. The first defendant has set up a counter claim contending that the schedule property alongwith other properties were bequeathed to her husband Sadananda Shettigara by his grandmother Venkamma Shettigarthi by a will dated 31.1.1985. After the death of Venkamma Shettigarthi, her husband succeeded to the schedule property on the strength of the will executed by Venkamma Shettigarthi and after the death of Sadananda Shettigara, defendants succeeded to the schedule property and hence defendant No. 1 has sought for a declaration to declare that the defendants are the owners of the schedule property by virtue of a will executed by Venkamma Shettigarthi and that the plaintiffs are in no way concerned to the schedule property. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as nine issues and two additional issues which are as under: -