MOHAMMED SADIQ Vs. MAHBOOB SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-3-1986 in Original Suit No. 165/1983 on the file of the Civil Judge at Bellary.

(2.) In the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the rank assigned to them in the trial court. Appellants before us are defendants 5 and 6. They are said to be brothers. However, it was defendant-5 who purchased the suit property from defendants 1, 2 and 3 on 27-5-1971 for consideration. Thereafter, defendant-6 purchased the property from defendant-5 by a deed of sale on 18-9-1973. Plaintiff is the first respondent in this appeal. Plaintiff's mother and 3 other brothers were defendants 1 to 4., in the trial court.

(3.) Plaintiff brought the suit for partition and separate possession of his share (1/5) in the suit property, a residential house situated in Ballary Town. He pleaded that the suit schedule proparty was the property of his father- Sattar Sab and on his death, he acquired 1/5th interest in the suit property as owner. He further averred that soon after the death of his father, he had to leave Beilary and work at Torangal and Hospet, that he occasionally came back to Ballary and foand that the other members of the family, namely, defendants 1 to 3 were residing in the outhouse and some strangers were in occupation of the main premir.es. On enquiry, learnt that they were only tenants who occupied the main premises. Defendant-4 also was working for his livelihood outside Bellary at Torangal and Hospet and was not aware of the facts which they learnt later on enquiry. It is stated by ths plaintiff that in or about 1982, when they came back to settle down at Bellary, they discovered the same state of affairs and when pressed for partition, defendants 1, 2 and 3 informed that partition had to bo postponed for sometime as the p-operty had been mortgaged and the loan had to be cleared. Sespeeling some mischief, plaintiff and defendant-4 obtained information from the Sub-Registrar's Office and also obtained certified copies of the sale deed executed infavour of defendant-5 by defendants 1, 2 and 3 and the sale by defendant 5 infavour of defendant-6. Therefore, they filed the suit for possession of their interest which plaintiff contended, had not been transferred by the sale deeds in question. Declaration of their right, title and inteiest in the suit schedule property was also prayed for. The suit was filed on 21-10-1983 after a lawyer's notice had been earlier issued.