SHIVALINGE GOWDA Vs. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2013 made in R.A. No. 76 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Channapaltana, Ramanagar District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12-1-2011 made in O.S. No. 98 of 2007 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Channapatna, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) The appellant, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property contending that the propositus had six sons and three of his sons partitioned 15 years back and three other including the plaintiff are continuing in the joint family enjoying the properties together and 31 guntas in Sy. No. 134/1 of Sunnaghatta Village, was in the name of defendant out of joint family income vide sale deed dated 2-8-1989, but it belongs to the joint family and the said 31 guntas was partitioned in unregistered panchayath parikath in the presence of witnesses and the plaintiff having right to an extent of 15 1/2 guntas in the suit schedule property and the defendant is also having half snare in the said property ana they are enjoying the same separately since 8-8-2001. It is further contended that as the defendant is trying to alienate 31 guntas including the share of the plaintiff by using the entries in the R.T.C., hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

(3.) The defendant has filed the written statement, inter alia, denying the plaint averments but admitted the relationship of the parties. It is averred that 15 years back there was a partition in the family of the plaintiff and defendant and all are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and there is a severance of joint family status. The panchayath parikath dated 8-8-2001 is said to be a concocted one. It is also stated that the sale deed dated 2-8-1989 is subsequent to the partition and the defendant has purchased the suit property, which is his absolute property and got it converted for non-agricultural purpose and plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property. It was also contended that originally suit was filed for bare injunction, but later by way of amendment it was amended seeking the declaration of title. The defendant in the additional written statement has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.