CHITRABAI,W/O RAJU Vs. RAMCHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and cross-objection arise from judgment and decree dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bidar in O.S.220/1997. Appeal is by the first defendant and cross-objection was filed by one Ramachander and after his death, his legal representatives have come on record. For the sake of convenience and better understanding, and especially for the reason that reference has to be made to former suits and appeals, parties are referred to with respect to their names.

(2.) The subject matter of the suit is 26 acres 4 guntas in Sy. No. 140 of Chillargi Village, Bidar Taluk and District (referred to as suit property). This survey number was further divided into Sy. No.140/A to the extent of 13 acres 2 guntas and Sy. No. 140/AA to the extent of 13 acres 1 gunta. One Ramachander instituted a suit pleading that Surajmal was his brother and he died as a bachelor during June 1962. He claimed that he was the only legal heir of Surajmal and therefore succeeded to the suit property. After the death of Surajmal, Vijayakumar (defendant no.2), his mother Saraswathibai and sister Sheelabai, claiming to be the legal heirs of Surajmal filed a suit, O.S. 26/1966 in the Court of Munsiff, Bidar, for declaration of their title and permanent injunction in respect of land in Sy. No.140/A, i.e. part of suit property. In the said suit, Saraswathibai claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of Surajmal and that Vijayakumar and Sheelabai were her children. The said suit was partly decreed; relief of declaration of title was denied on the ground that there was no partition between Surajmal and Ramachander; however, relief of injunction was granted. Aggrieved by this judgment, Ramachander preferred an appeal RA 30/1972 and Vijayakumar, his mother and sister filed RA 43/1972 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bidar. These two appeals were dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial court. Thereafter, Vijayakumar along with his sister and mother filed O.S.17/1972 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bidar, for partition and separate possession not only in respect of suit property but also other properties. This suit was re-numbered as O.S.191/1989.

(3.) It is further case of Ramachander that during the pendency of the suit for partition, though Vijayakumar had admitted that he had been dispossessed from all the properties which were subject matter of that suit, executed three registered sale deeds on 24.7.1989 in respect of land in Sy. No. 140/A in favour of one Raju belonging to Village Ghadgi of Bidar Taluk. This sale was not supported by consideration and even the possession was also not handed over to the purchaser. Therefore, Ramachander pleaded that the said sale deeds were nominal and did not affect his rights. This being the position, Chitrabai (first defendant), wife of Raju filed a suit O.S.164/1997 against Vijayakumar in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bidar and obtained a collusive decree and thereafter filed an execution petition to obtain the record of rights mutated to her name. Ramachander, coming to know of this, filed statement of objections in the proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar in this regard. Vijayakumar also obtained the mutation of the suit property by colluding with Village Accountant and therefore Ramachander preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar. The said appeal was dismissed and Ramachander preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. In the writ petition, an interim order was passed to maintain status quo with regard to record of rights. Ramachander alleged that the defendants namely Chitrabai and Vijayakumar suppressed all these proceedings and colluded with each other in decree based on compromise being passed in O.S.164/1997. In the meantime the first defendant-Chitrabai threatened Ramachander's possession and she made an attempt to take forcible possession of the suit property from him and hence Ramachander sought declaration of title in respect of the suit property and also a declaration that the sale deeds executed by Vijayakumar on 24.7.1989 in favour of Raju as well as the decree in O.S.164/1997 were null and void and ineffective against his right and interest. Ramachander also sought perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, Chitrabai and Vijayakumar from interfering with his possession of the suit property.