A S VIGNESHWARA UDUPA Vs. TEEKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is an unfortunate appeal by the plaintiff who is kept out of the relief he has prayed for, for a period of seven years as on date. Despite the fact that the defendants submitted to the decree, I am really not able to understand how the Courts can act in such a fashion when defendant himself openly says that he has no defence at all. The allegations complained are as follows:

(2.) ORIGINALLY, Ramakrishna Udupa was the owner of the suit land bearing S. No. 74 measuring 98-A-04 gs. of Togare village. The said ramakrishna Udupa is the maternal grand father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and Shivaram, Anantapadmanabha, Manjunath and Nagesha are the sons of daughter of said Ramakrishna Udupa by name laxmidevamma. The said Ramakrishna Udupa bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers under the registered Will dated 6-9-1965. After the death of said Ramakrishna udupa the plaintiff and his brothers became the full owners of the suit schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Plaintiff is looking after the joint family of himself and his brothers and he is the General Power of Attorney holder of his brothers and the suit is filed representing the joint family as a Manager. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and they are denying the right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and obstructed the plaintiff from fencing the suit schedule property contending that it is a Soppina Betta and plaintiff is not the owner of the same. On these allegations the plaintiff has sought for declaration that himself and his brothers are the owners of suit schedule property and permanent injunction against the defendants.

(3.) AFTER service of suit summons, the defendants appeared through counsel. The defendants filed a consent memo stating that they have no objection to decree the suit as prayed for in the plaint.