R MANJUNATHA REDDYKAR Vs. L A SRINIVASA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiffs being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2011 in R A No.257/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The lower appellate allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2009 in O S No.25/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Anekal. The trial court had decreed the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by father of the plaintiffs dated 15.4.1982 is invalid in terms of the judgment passed in O S No.334/87 and subsequent sale deed dated 16.7.1987 executed by K L Malhothra and another in favour of Mohammed Iqbal and sale deed dated 19.8.1987 executed by Mohammed Iqbal in favour of the first defendant is also null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs' rights in the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties.

(2.) The parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The facts of the case to be stated in brief are that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and their family members are all having peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they are cultivating the suit schedule properties. Their father has conveyed the schedule properties to one K L Malhothra S/o Late D R Malhothra and Ms. Aruna Shekuja D/o D W Shekuja, by a registered sale deed dated 15.4.1982. The plaintiffs were minors when the sale took place. Hence the plaintiffs filed a suit in O S No.334/87 that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties and the sale deed made by their father in favour of purchasers is null and void. The said suit came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1992 declaring that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the sale deed dated 15.4.1982 executed by the plaintiffs' father in favour of purchasers is invalid and not binding on them.