MALLIKARJUNA Vs. MAREPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff before the trial Court is the appellant herein and the suit filed by him for declaration and possession came to be allowed by the trial Court in O. S. No. 57/99 and the defendants preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court before the lower Appellate Court in R. A. No. 18/2002 and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants 2 and 3 and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Against the said decision of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are to the effect that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in question praying for a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is null and void and also for possession of the suit schedule property which is land bearing Survey No. 600 measuring 12 aces and23 guntas of land, situated at Yadgir, Taluk and District Gulbarga. The plaintiff based his suit on the foundation that the suit schedule property was purchased by his father who is also the natural guardian-first defendant in the year 1981 under registered sale deed dated 7,8. 1981. Therefore, the appellant being the real owner of the suit schedule property, the first defendant being his natural father, could not have sold the same to the second defendant under the sale deed date 9. 2. 1982 without obtaining necessary permission from the Civil Court as required under Section-8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956 ( '1956 Act' in short ). Secondly, it was also contended that as the suit land was in possession of the second defendant, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief of delivery of possession also. The said suit of the plaintiff was contested only by the second defendant by taking up the stand that the suit property was purchased by second defendant from the first defendant under registered sale-deed and since then, second defendant has been in possession and as such, the plaintiff did not entitle to the relief sought for by him. Another contention taken in the light of the submission is to the effect that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation because, age of the plaintiff has been shown in the registered sale deed dated 9. 2. 1983 as eight years and as such, the suit having been filed after the limitation period, therefore is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE third defendant also adopted the very stand taken by the second defendant and sought for dismissal of the suit. It was also stated by him that the third defendant is the bonafide purchaser and the suit property was sold for necessity.