BAKKAPPA Vs. DHARAMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decreed dated 05.09.2011 made in R.A.No.192/2011 on the file of IV Addl. District Judge, at Gulbarga dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Chincholi dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed for declaration of title, injunction and rectification of revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties morefully described in the plaint schedule as items No.ABCD respectively.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 are brothers and defendant No.3 is the wife of plaintiff's uncle viz., Shivaraya Gounalli. The plaintiff's father late Bhimashetty Gounalli died in the year 1988. The said Bheemshetty and husband of the defendant No.3 Shivaraya were the divided members and they were residing separately since long time prior to the death of Bheemshetty. It was further contended that suit lands Sy.Nos.184/A, 184/B and 184/C were in fact one compact land bearing Sy.No.184 measuring 18 acres 21 guntas. The said land belonged to late grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 viz., Basalingappa s/o Shivappa resident of Ainolli village. The Basalingappa had borrowed loan from V.S.S.S.N. Ainolli village Tq: Chincholli Dist: Gulbarga. During his lifetime he did not repay the said loan. As such the said land was attached and sold for the recovery of Rs.4,377/- as per award passed by Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Sedam.

(3.) When the land has auctioned in public on 27.02.1978, the plaintiff purchased the said land for Rs.5,600/- out of his own money. Accordingly, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 15.02.1979. In pursuance of that sale deed, the plaintiff was put in possession of the said land. Mutation was also entered. Therefore, it is his selfacquired property. It was further contended that the plaintiff out of his own income purchased land Sy.No.185/1 measuring 03 acres 07 guntas i.e., item No.D in the plaint schedule under registered sale deed on 24.05.1977 from its previous owner Mastansaheb s/o Fakeersaheb and name of plaintiff was mutated. The defendants No.1 to 3 had absolutely no right, title or interest in any of these lands. They are not in possession at any time. Without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, mutation was effected in the name of plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 and their late mother one Sugalamma w/o Bheemshetty on 30.06.1989, on the false ground that partition has been effected in Sy.Nos.184 and 185/1 between them. As per that partition in the land Sy.No.184 three divisions were shown to the extent of 06 acres 07 guntas each in the name of plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 each. The land Sy.No.185/1 was shown as having been allotted to the share of their mother Sugalamma. No notice had been given to the plaintiff, regarding the said land's mutation. Plaintiff also had not given any application for effecting such mutation to the revenue authorities. It was further contended that plaintiff came to know of that mutation. Subsequent entries in the record of rights in the month of April-2006, when the defendants No.2 and 3 tried to interferes in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land on the ground that the land Sy.No.184/C was mutated in the name of defendant No.2. In the same Sy.No.184/C, an area of 01 acre 20 guntas was mutated in the name of the defendant No.3. Even though there was no partition, revenue entries were entered in the name of defendants No.1 and 2 and mother. Therefore, plaintiff contended that mother of the plaintiff has no legal rights and plaintiff himself is in possession and cultivation of land Sy.No.185/1. It was further contended that defendants No.2 and 3 colluded with each other got entered the name of defendant No.3 to the extent of 01 acre 20 guntas in land Sy.No.184/C as per order of the Tahasildar Chincholli dated 19.04.2006. Therefore, the plaintiff filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner Sedam. Therefore, he has filed suit for the relief of declaration of title in respect of ABCD properties and permanent injunction and direction to the revenue authorities to delete the name of defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of suit schedule properties.