PARAMMA Vs. CHIKKARANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the second defendant in O.S. No. 147/75 before the Munsiff Court, Hosadurga, filed by respondents 1 to 3 against the present appellant and her father respondent 4 for a declaration that the gift deed dt. 15-6-1974 executed by their father first defendant in the original suit in her favour is not binding on them, to cancel the same in respect of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession.

(2.) Defendant 2 appellant is the daughter of defendant 1 and he has another daughter who is not a party to the Suit and she is married. The plaintiffs allege that they and their father defendant 1 were the members of the undivided Hindu family and the suit property which is an agricultural land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas bearing R.S. No. 6/1 of Neralakera village in Hosadurga Taluk and other properties which are not included in the suit are the joint family properties. Their father was indulging in evil ways and squandering the family funds and was not managing the family properly. The family owns ancestral properties including the suit property of about 6 acres in all. The suit property is very fertile being in the outskirts of the village and fetched Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per acre at the time when the suit was filed. The family was mainly depending on the income of the suit property wherein they grow ragi and jawar. For about 2 or 3 years, prior to the date of the suit, the first defendant was living with defendant 2 and defendant 2 is inimically disposed towards them and they had filed O.S. No. 164/74 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. At that time it transpired that 1st defendant executed the gift deed in favour of defendant 2 and they maintain that this gift deed dt. 15-6-1974 in favour of the appellant-defendant 2 is sham, bogus and collusive. Defendant-1 has no right to execute it, no delivery of possession was given to defendant 2, it was not acted upon and therefore they were compelled to file the present suit as they could not get any injunction in the previous suit. Thereafter defendant 1 filed a suit in O. S. No. 189/74 for partition and possession of his share against the plaintiffs and taking advantage of the situation defendant 2 was obstructing their possession.

(3.) Inter alia the defendants filed a common written statement mainly contending that the suit property is the self-acquisition of defendant-1; that defendant 1 had in fact executed the gift deed now impugned and put defendant-2 in possession of the property. The partition suit filed by defendant 1 is admitted. Defendant 1 had got great love and affection towards defendant 2 and in token of it and also for the reason she was taking care of him in his old age, he gifted away the suit property to her and he also intended to perform his obligation of blessing his daughter with "Arisina-Kunkuma" which is a custom in the community. He contended that the plaintiffs are lazy and vagabonds who have no responsibility towards the family. They even forgot their duties towards defendant 1 and defendant 2 as well. With these contentions, the trial Court raised the following issues : 1. Do the plaintiffs prove that the gift deed dt. 15-6-1974 executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs and void in law? 2. Do they prove that no delivery of possession was given to 2nd defendant? 3. Do the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit land on the date of suit?