SAKRAPPA NEELAPPA Vs. SHIDRAMAPPA GANGAPPA KATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal relates to a property which, according to the plaintiffs, was gifted to plaintiff 1 and to his brother Kallappa as early as in 1914. They claim to be in possession of half the property and filed the suit to recover possession of the remaining half from the three defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the property was thus divided by reason of a compromise in an earlier suit filed by the present plaintiffs against one Channabasavva who is claimed to be the adoptive mother of the defendant. It is further alleged that, according to the terms of the compromise, Channabasavva was to enjoy half the gifted property till her death for her maintenance and that the property was to revert back to the plaintiffs after her death. She having died on 17-9-1948 the plaintiffs claimed possession of the half share in her possession. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' case by saying that there was no suit and that it is not valid and binding on him. He further claimed that he was adopted by Channabasavva on 17-10-1944 and that he is entitled to inherit her husband's properties. He also contended that even apart from his claim as an adopted son, he is entitled to inherit Yellappa, the original owner of the properties, who is said to have gifted the property to Channabasavva, his daughter-in-law. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but, in appeal the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed. It is against this decree that the plaintiff have come up in second appeal.

(2.) The suit has a long history and a chequered career. I thing it is necessary to mention the same in brief. As already mentioned, Long Cause Suit No. 644/14 was filed by plaintiffs against Channabasavva and her father-in-law Yellappa who was the donor of the plaintiffs. In that suit there was a compromise between the plaintiffs and Channabasavva. The abovementioned terms are the material portions of that compromise. Yellappa, the donor, who was a party to the suit, remained absent, and he was not a party to the compromise. As the decree in that suit was on the compromise, obviously Yallappa was not bound by the decree. That is how defendant claiming as the heir of Yallappa contends that he is not bound by the decree. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, they got possession of their half share in the property on 22-1-1917 by executing the abovesaid compromise decree. The other half evidently remained with Channabasavva who died on 17-9-1948.

(3.) Plaintiff I filed Long Cause Suit No. 214/49 against the present defendant for possession of the said half portion of the land which was left with Channabasavva as a result of the compromise. It appears that, in the course of the suit proceedings, it was felt that the suit based on a compromise decree without basing the claim on title viz., the gift, was untenable. The plaintiffs therefore gave a pursis Ext. 29, dated 20-3-1950 stating that the suit was not based on gift but on heirship. On that technical ground, it was thought necessary to withdraw the suit. That suit was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Ext. 37 dated 11-9-1950 is the application to withdraw the suit. Thereafter the present suit was filed on 24-11-1950.