SHRIMANT Vs. KASTURIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2013 made in R.A.No. 90/2010 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Bijapur dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010 made in O.S.No. 277/2004 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Bijapur, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part for declaration, injunction and alternative relief of possession in respect of suit schedule property more fully described in the schedule of the plaint. Further ordered that defendant is directed to deliver the possession of the suit property within two months from the date of judgment and to hold separate enquiry for awarding mesne profits.

(2.) The respondent-Kasturibai is the plaintiff before the trial Court. She has filed a suit for declaration, injunction and alternative relief of possession. She contended that she is the legally wedded wife of Sharanappa Babu Gunaki and he died about 20 years ago, who was the owner of suit schedule property which is more fully described in the plaint schedule land bearing Sy.No. 250/2 measuring 07 acres of Nagathan village. During the lifetime of husband of the plaintiff, Sharanappa was married with one Sangawwa as his 2nd wife and the present defendant is the son of deceased Sharanappa born through his 2nd wife Sangawwa. The deceased husband of the plaintiff had gifted the suit land in favour of plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated 06.03.1971 for her maintenance and put her in possession of the same on the same day. Accordingly, her name came to be duly entered into the suit land under M.E.No. 4792 dated 11.10.1971. From the date of said gift, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as absolute owner. Such being the facts, the defendant without having any right, title and interest over the suit land and without her knowledge, has got managed to got certified the mutation M.E.No. 6643 dated 04.05.1984 in his favour. It was further contended by plaintiff that, in fact the she had not given any Waradi for entering the name of the defendant under alleged mutation No. 6643 in other rights column of the RTC of the suit land. Now the defendant is alleging that he is the absolute owner of the suit land. Accordingly defendant is causing obstruction to the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to cultivate the suit land through hired labourers. She is raising crops like jowar, sunflower etc., Therefore, plaintiff sought for decree the suit as prayed for.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint in respect of execution of registered gift deed dated 06.03.1971 by the deceased Sharanappa in favour of the plaintiff for her maintenance and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. He further denied that he being the son of the deceased Sharanappa as per the recitals of the alleged gift deed. After the death of Sharanappa, he became the absolute owner and he is having his right, title and interest over the suit land. Accordingly, with the knowledge of the plaintiff he has gave Waradi for certification of M.E.No. 6643 stating that after the death of plaintiff he became the owner of the suit land and his name was duly be entered in the other rights column. He denied the alleged cause of action as averred by the plaintiff. Defendant further contended that the deceased Sharanappa had no right, nor authority to execute the gift deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to the suit land. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit.