MUDAKAFPA Vs. RUDBAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS. 11 /1972 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, Haveri is the appellant in this appeal. He instituted the said suit for the permanent injunction aganinst the defendants, respondents herein, Restraining them from interfering with his possession of the three suit lands bearing RS.Nos.134 & 135 of Kittur village and RS.No.109 in Maidar village in Haveri Taluk, Dharwar District. The facts of the case briefly are these There was one Mudakappa, who died several years ago leaving behind him four sons by name : Virupaxappa, Rudrappa(defendant-l) Chinnappa (Defendant-2) and Basappa. In the year 1963 there was a partition in the said family amongst the four sons. At that partition, the properties belonging to the family were divided. The plaintiff's case was that the three lands in question, which were being cultivated by his father Virupaxappa as a sole lessee were not the subject matter of partition and that on his (Virupaxappa's) death he inherited the lease-hold rights in the said lands. He claimed that defendants 1 and 2 and Fakiravva (defendant-3) the widow of their brother Basappa had no right to interfere with his exclusive possession of the suit lands and was therefore entitled to an injunction as prayed for against them.

(2.) The defendants pleaded that the lease-hold rights in the suit lands originally belonged to the joint family consisting of the four sons of Mudakappa but were not divided amongst them at the partition which took place in the year 1953, since all the members of the family agreed to continue to enjoy the same jointly as lessees. They also pleaded that on the date of the suit they were in possession of the suit lands as joint lessees along with the plaintiff and that no decree for injunction could be passed against them. It was however, admitted by both the parties that the lease in question commenced more than 40 years ago.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues, viz., (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in exclusive possession of suit property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants had interfered with his possession? and (3) To what reliefs the parties are entitled?