VASUDEVARAO Vs. SHAILAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain lands measuring 10 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 29-A of Sankanur Village in Yelaburga Taluk, District of Raichur was owned and possessed by one Adavi Rao. He had 3 sons by name Swami Rao, Venkata Rao and Hanumantha Rao. It appears at a partition of the family properties, this land was left for the maintenance of Adavi Rao. Adavi Rao died in about the year 1960. Venkat Rao died in about the year 1984 and Hanumantha Rao in the year 1990. Venkat Rao died leaving behind his widow Indira Bai and son Vasudevarao, the revision petitioners before this Court. Hanumantha Rao died leaving behind his widow Krishna Bai and son Raghavendra Rao. Swami Rao had four daughters and three sons. Swami Rao's case is that he was in enjoyment of this property right from 1954 and in about the year 1984, in a family arrangement settled the property in favour of his daughters viz., Kamala, Rangubai and Shailaja, respondents 1 to 3 in the case to the exclusion of their sons, Ananth Rao, Adavi Rao and Krishna Rao. Respondents 1 to 3 in the revision are the daughters of Swami Rao and respondents 5 to 7 are his sons. Respondent 4, Raghavendra Rao is the son of Hanumantha Rao. On an application, mutation was made in the name of the daughters in about the year 1984 and that was questioned by the widows before the Assistant Commissioner in SR. RRT:55:90-91 and by order dated March 18, 1991, the learned Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and after final decision in the civil suits pending between the parties. The records would reveal that Indira Bai and Krishna Bai filed a suit at the first instance in the Court of Vacation Judge, Raichur in O.S. No. 26 of 1990 against Swami Rao for cancellation of the mutation entries and later it came to be transferred to the Court of Munsiff, Yelaburga and registered as O.S. No. 33 of 1990. An interim order was made under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on an application (II) by the plaintiffs in that suit and against that order Swami Rao preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1194 of 1990 before this Court and while disposing of that appeal, on November 15, 1990, the learned Single Judge observed that on the facts made available, it would be difficult for the Court to say as to who is in actual possession of the land in question and therefore the Court should have appointed a receiver. However, the learned Single Judge further stated that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to 7 acres 11 guntas and Swami Rao is entitled to 3 acres and 25 guntas and also said that the boundary of the land that should go to Swami Rao shall run from west to east. Daughters of Swami Rao viz., Kamala, Rangubai and Shailaja brought a suit (O.S. No. 10 of 1991) in the Court of Munsiff, Yelaburga against Hasanappa Myageri, Vasudeva Rao and Raghavendra Rao in respect of the same land for a declaration of their title and for permanent injunction. The defendants appeared, filed their written statement, issues were framed, however, it would appear the defendants did not later adduce any evidence. The Court after considering the evidence of the plaintiffs recorded the finding on each one of the issues and on September 16, 1992 decreed the suit. The defendants therein, one of them being the revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Civil Judge, Raichur in appeal R.A. No. 52 of 1992 and that appeal came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on April 19,1993. Nothing is seen in the records to indicate that this order is under challenge before any authority.

(2.) It may also be noted that the suit filed by Indira Bai and Krishna Bai came to be dismissed for default of their appearance and its non-Prosecution on June 3, 1991. Their application for setting aside that ex parts decree also came to be dismissed on August 20,1991.

(3.) Things as it stood, Indira Bai filed an affidavit before the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Yelaburga wherein she stated that she is in possession of 1/3rd of 10 acres 36 guntas of land and in view of the dispute, there is likely to be breach of peace concerning the land and that it is just and appropriate that the Government take over the custody of the property. A rough sketch of the land said to be in her possession also accompanied the affidavit.