GHULAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA Vs. SANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the second defendant are the appellants. The suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land, prohibiting them from selling the crops or in the alternative for possession was partly decreed by the Trial Court by which injunction restraining the plaintiff's enjoyment of 14 guntas of land against D1 alone was granted. Alternative relief for possession was rejected. On Appeal again by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court granted decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and the cross -objections preferred by the L.R.s of D2 was rejected. Hence, this regular second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' claim was that they are the owners of the land in S.No.16/2/3 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. The plaintiffs predecessors had mortgaged this land with possession for Rs. 50/ -, to the father of the first defendant in the year 1905. The document was not registered. The second defendant is the son of the detendant's paternal Aunt. The plaintiff's redeemed the mortgage in the year 1963. Though the mortgage was fully satisfied, the possession has been delivered to the plaintiffs only in the year 1963. No mutation was recorded. Though the defendant was evading to give consent, later at the intervention of the elderly persons, the first defendant gave consent to the Wardi given by the. plaintiffs and accordingly, the name of the plaintiffs have been entered into the column of Kabjedar. The plaintiffs were minors and as there was nobody to look after the cultivation, they asked the defendant No. 1 to cultivate the same on their behalf and it was being done till the filing of the plaint. But due to some strained relations, defendant No. 1 in collusion with D2 was trying to dispose of the crops standing on the suit land and thus causing loss to the plaintiffs. Hence, they came forward with the suit for injunction.

(3.) ON these pleadings, the parties went for trial and on consideration of the evidence adduced and the documents produced, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs prove their ownership of the suit land. However, they were held to be in possession of only 14 guntas of land. The plaintiffs also have proved the mortgage and redemption only to the extent of 14 guntas of land and not the entire suit property. Holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession of the suit property, the Trial Court granted injunction against the defendants only to the extent of 14 guntas of land and that too against D1.