NAGARAJ Vs. C P MUNIKRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosur made in A.S.No.15 of 1996 dated 21.09.1998, confirming the decree and judgment of the District Munsif, Hosur, made in O.S.No.238 of 1995 dated 12.12.1995.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondents herein filed the suit for title over the suit property and for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, on averments such as that the suit property originally belongs to Poojari Muniappa's son Thandavappa - 1 and his sons Muniappa - 2 and Bodappa - 3; that one Krishnaiah @ Chinnayyappa bought the said suit property on 20.06.1960 from Thandavappa and his sons; that the first plaintiff bought the suit property from the said Krishnaiah @ Chinnappiah's wife Jayalakshmi on 16.12.1974 through a registered sale deed; that the first defendant is the son of Muniappa; that Bodappa is his uncle and that Thandavappa is his grandfather; that the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant; that from the date on which the suit property was bought by the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the said property; that the suit property is in village natham, no kist has been paid; that the defendants on 19.05.1985 trespassed into the suit property and tried to put up a foundation stone; that the plaintiff who filed the suit died pending the suit, left behind 2 to 8 legal heirs; that the defendants put up a tharchat building in the suit property; and hence the suit filed for the above said reliefs.

(3.) On the contrary, the defendants in their written statement would state that the plaintiffs or their ancestors have no right or title over the suit property; that from 1996 onwards the suit property is with the defendants' undisturbed possession; that the defendants have not denied the relationship stated in the suit averment; that the registered sale deeds executed on 20.06.1960 and 16.12.1974 are not genuine; that the thached building said to have been put up in the suit property is within the defendants' property; that the suit property belongs to their ancestors and not the plaintiffs. On such aversments, the defendants would pray to dismiss the suit.