RATHNAMMA Vs. K V HANUMANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 26 of 1981, on the file of Court of Munsiff at Gowribidanur, whose suit though had been decreed as prayed for declaring them to be the persons entitled for a 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property, which the sole defendant had purchased from the husband of first plaintiff, who also acted as guardian of plaintiffs 2 to 6 - minor children i. e. plaintiffs 2 to 5 being daughters and sixth plaintesuit schedule property with consequential rights etc. , that judgment and decree having been reversed by the lower appellate Court in R. A. No. 30 of 1983, on the file of Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chikkaballapur in terms of judgment dated 24-6-2000, which is questioned in this second appeal. The plaintiffs are seeking to get over this judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and for restoration of the decree that had been granted in their favour by the trial Court and for such purpose this second appeal.

(2.) A few facts leading to the above appeal are that : One Chikkanna had inherited an extent of 5 acre 23 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 372 of Gangasnadra village, gowribidanur taluk, in a family partition that had taken place amongst his brothers. This property had been sold on 14-5-1973 (Ex. P. 1)in favour of the defendant, indicating the consideration to be Rs. 6,000/ -. The vendor chikkanna, it appears, died on 3-2-1977. It was the case of the plaintiffs that at the time of sale transaction i. e. in the year 1973, chikkanna had four daughters through his wife Sunandamma, who, it appears, died in unfortunate circumstance, and Chikkanna had married first wife's sister Ratnamma, through whom he had got a son by name Nagendra; that the suit schedule property, which was an ancestral property which he had got by way of partition in the family, had been sold not for any legal necessitates, but because of his bad habits and without any proper consideration; that the sale transaction was a nominal one and therefore the plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration that this sale transaction does not bind their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property and though the defendant may retain the l/3rd share which Chikkanna would have otherwise got as his share, the other 2/3rd share will have to be parted in favour of plaintiffs and for recovery of this extent and restraint order thereafter from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs, the suit had been filed.

(3.) THE original suit itself had been filed in the year 1981, to be precise, on 28-1-1981. The suit was contested. Defendant filed written statement. Plaint averments were all denied and the plaintiffs were put to strict proof of the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the sale transaction was neither a nominal transaction nor one to raise fund for the bad habits of Chikkanna, but it was for legal necessity, in the sense, to discharge the loans that Chikkanna had raised during his life time to maintain the family and other expenses of the family; that the defendant was a bona fide purchaser for valuable sale consideration and ever since the sale transaction, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the existing well and pump-set; that the plaintiff did not have any right, title and interest to claim a share in the suit schedule property; that the defendant, after purchase of the property, effected considerable improvements; that there was no cause of action; that the suit is barred by limitation and not tenable in law and therefore pleaded for dismissal of the suit.