BHIMAPPA Vs. GANGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the sole plaintiff in O.S. No.29 of 1998, on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Bichkunda, are the appellants. Two defendants, the sister and brother of the sole plaintiff, also expired during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence, their legal representatives are brought on record. The parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed that in a family partition between himself and the second defendant, the suit schedule property, in an extent of Ac.312 gts., in Sy.No.351/A of Jukkal Village, fell to his share, along with certain other properties. He stated that his sister, the first defendant, initiated proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), for mutation in respect of that very land in her favour, on the strength of a gift deed dated 22-4-1997 said to have been executed in her favour by their father, and that after hearing both the parties, the MRO rejected her claim, through his proceedings dated 5-8-1997. He pleaded that he continued to be in possession of the property, since the date of partition, and that on the strength of the so-called gift deed, the defendants started interfering with his possession. He claimed the relief of perpetual injunction.

(3.) Separate written statements were filed by the defendants. The first defendant pleaded that their father acquired the entire land in Sy.No.351, admeasuring about Ac. 10-00, and out of it, he gifted the suit schedule property to her, through a gift deed dated 22-4-1997. She stated that she made an application before the MRO, subsequent to 1997, and on consideration of the same, her name was entered in the revenue records, as pattadar. She also pleaded that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The second defendant did not claim any independent right over the land.