LAKSHMAMMA Vs. HONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in the Trial Court are the appellants herein and the challenge is to the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, the respondents herein, and declaring the respondents as the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possession and the consequent order of permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the respondents' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(2.) THE facts as could be seen from the pleadings of the parties to a considerable extent are not in dispute and so also the relationship among the parties interse. In shorts, the plaintiffs sought for the declaration to the effect that they are the absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which measures 28 acres and 9 guntes of land situated at Chikkellor Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, situated in S.Nos. 72, to 75, 82 and 83, and it was their case before the Trial Court that originally the suit schedule property belonged to one Basavaiah @ Besave Gowda, father of plaintiffs-3 to 6 and father -in-law of plaintiff-1 and grand-father of plaintiff-2, and the said Basavaiah had agreed to sell the suit land to one Hanumaiah, father of defendants-2 to 8 and father-in-law of defendant-1, and the said Hanumaiah filed the suit in O.S.No. 39/1969 for specific performance against the aforesaid Basavaiah and the suit came to be decreed on 30.3.1971 and in the execution proceedings viz, Execution Case No. 343/1971, said Hanumaiah sought for execution of the sale deed and accordingly, the sale deed was executed on 15.11.1971 in favour of said Hanumaiah through the Court and Hanumaiah was in possession of the suit land thereafter, following delivery of possession to him.

(3.) DEFENDANTS-9 and 10 filed their written statement in common, which was adopted by the other defendants and, while admitting the relationship interse between the parties to the suit and also the factum of the father of defendants-2 to 8 and father-in-law of defendant-1, it was contended that said Hanumaiah had filed the suit in O.S.No.39/1969. which ultimately led to the sale deed being executed in favour of Hanumaiah on 15.11.1971 and the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 133/1974 being dismissed and so was the appeal in R.A.No. 8/1978. But, however, the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs was not admitted. But, on the other hand, defendants-9 and 10 contended that they were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed from defendants-1 to 8 on 24.7.1996 and since the said date, the said defendants-9 and 10 were put in possessions of the suit schedule property.