MAHADEVI Vs. HANMANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in O.S.No.143/2007 have preferred this second appeal assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.52/2010 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yadgir dated 18.12.2010 by which, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2007 dated 13.08.2010 by the Court of the Civil Judge at Yadgir has been confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial court.

(3.) The appellant - plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondent - defendants seeking the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit lands and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference in the suit property. The suit properties are lands bearing Sy.Nos.260 (U) and 260(Uu) measuring 28 guntas and 1 acre 29 guntas respectively, both situated at Balichakra village, Yadgir taluk and district. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Narsingappa. According to her, Narsingappa left home about thirty years ago as he was whimsical and he became a monk, his whereabouts are not known to plaintiff No.1 and her family members. Plaintiff No.2 is the wife of Yankappa, brother of Narsingappa. Both are sons of Hanmantha Bommannore. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have common interest in the suit schedule properties. They are inam lands which were granted to the family of plaintiffs by the Nizam of Hyderabad for rendering Sainiksindhi services. The same is recorded in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954. The original inamdar was Hanmantha Karibommannore. He died leaving behind him his two sons namely, Bheemanna and Purayankappa. The lands were standing in the name of Bheemanna. In the year 1965 there was a family arrangement and in that arrangement suit lands were mutated in the name of Hanmantha S/o Purayankappa and thereafter mutated in the name of Bheemanna the second son of Yankappa. Bheemanna and Hanmantha succeeded to the suit lands as joint owners. After the death of Hanmantha and Bheemanna the names of husbands of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 namely, Narsingappa and Yankappa were recorded in the year 1978-79. In the year 1980 husband of plaintiff No.1 namely, Narsingappa left the house and became a monk. Yankappa, husband of plaintiff No.2 died in the year 1979. The plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit lands and they are cultivating the same as owners. The defendants are strangers and they are not concerned with the suit lands. The defendants are not in possession of the suit lands but they claim to have purchased it, though no sale deed has been executed by Narsingappa or Yankappa, neither has possession been delivered to the defendants. But on the basis of illegal sale deeds, the names of defendants have been entered in the record of rights and they are trying to interfere with plaintiffs' possession. That the defendants have created documents which are not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit lands being inam lands are not transferable. The alleged alienation made in favour of the defendants is not valid in the eye of law. The defendants have no right to interfere in the suit lands. Plaintiffs therefore filed the suit seeking aforesaid reliefs.