MALLIKA Vs. CHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals RFA Nos. 286/2001 and 386/2001 have been dismissed by judgment dated 10-7-2006. This petition has been filed to review the said judgment on the ground that the said decision has been given in ignorance of binding, law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753.

(2.) THE appeals arose out of common judgment dated 18-1-2001 passed by the learned XXIV Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-6), Bangalore, in o. S. Nos. 3470/1988 and 3491/1988. The suit O. S. No. 3470/1988 was for a declaration that the suit property, i. e. , 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 84/3a of cholanayakanahally village, Bangalore North Taluk, was a joint family property in which the plaintiffs had right as co-parceners; and the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for the sale of different sites therein were not binding on their shares. The plaintiffs prayed also for consequent permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was decreed as regards declaration sought and decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs holding that sales in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 5 were not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. However permanent injunction as prayed for was not granted in view of the proved possession of the property by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5.

(3.) CHALLENGING the declaration granted against them, the defendant nos. 2 to 5 preferred RFA No. 386/2001. The defendant No. 5 of that suit who was purchaser of site No. 8 out of 10 guntas of Sy. No. 84/3a had filed o. S. No. 349/1988 claiming that he was in lawful possession of site No. 8 in ten guntas of Sy. No. 84/3a and that the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 3470/1988 be restrained from disturbing his possession. In view of the finding by the trial Court that the defendant No. 5 was in possession of that property and was entitled to injunction, that was granted until the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 3470/1988 dispossessed him by taking recourse to law. Challenging that judgment, RFA No. 286/2001 had been filed.