DADA RAO S/O GYANOBA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (PRABHAVATHI W/O. VENKAT RAO AND OTHERS) Vs. MADHU S/O RAMJI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (SRI. PANDARI AND SRI. GOPAL), HANMANTH S/O RAMJI, SURYABHAN S/O RAMJI AND PRABHU S/O LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the sole defendant in O.S. No. 129/93 on the file of the Civil Judge, Basavakalyan, who has suffered a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit lands and being restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands by the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree has ultimately been affirmed by the lower appellate court in Regular Appeal No. 5/96 in terms of the judgment and decree dated 24.8.2001. Against these, the second appeal by the defendant.

(2.) THE second appeal is mainly canvassed on two questions of law which have been framed by this Court at the time of admission viz., 1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time? 2) Whether the courts below were justified in holding that the sale made in favour of appellant under Exs.Dl and D2 were for legal necessity? and contentions revolving around these questions.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that the subject lands were joint family properties; that Ramaji, the kartha of the family had, it appears, executed two sale deeds without any necessity or for proper consideration; that the sale deeds were never acted upon, the plaintiffs who were not of age at that time, were not aware of the said sale deeds; that Ramji died in the year 1980 whereafter the plaintiffs had taken steps to have the names of the other members of the family entered in the revenue records including the survey No. 99/2, but they have been orally informed by the Tahsildar that in respect of this survey number, the name of Ramji had continued without the plaintiffs being aware of the same, but later, on coming to know about the entries to be not mutated in favour of the plaintiffs by the revenue authorities, plaintiffs had given an application in the year 1980; that though the Tahsildar mutated the entries, the defendant who had filed objections to change the entries on the premise that he had become the owner of the lands in question through the sale deeds of the years 1965, 1966 had preferred the appeal to the Assistant Commissioner who had allowed the appeal; that to get over such an order, plaintiffs had filed writ petition before this Court, but the said writ petition was disposed of on 24.1.1982 indicating that the plaintiffs have to approach the Civil Court for declaration of title in the specified land and therefore, had filed the present suit praying for reliefs indicated above. On issue of notice, defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, filed written statement denying the plaint averments.