SHAMANNA AND ORS Vs. NARAYANAMMA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.138/2004 on the file of VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dated 01.09.2005. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiff sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff was that, the property measuring East to West 63 feet and North to South 24 feet is situated in Sy. No.28/1 of Yelachanahalli village, consisting of tile roofed house and one RCC roofed shop. Towards the northern side, mother of the plaintiff Gundamma purchased two guntas of land in Sy. No.28, New Sy.No.28/1 under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1967 from one T.V.Siddappachar and from the date of purchase, Gundamma was in possession till her death. During her life time, she constructed a tile roofed house and shop portion by leaving some vacant space about two guntas of land. After the said property came to the share of the plaintiff, plaintiff removed the Mangalore tiled roof, altered the front shop portion with RCC mould by spending about Rs.1,00,000/-, since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, however, the defendant taking advantage of the innocence and illiteracy of the plaintiff, tried to demolish the house constructed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant filed the written statement contending that, the property belongs to the defendant, he got the same in the partition dated 01.04.2000, which took place between himself and Sri.Muniyellappa, plaintiff got the property bearing site No.1 in Sy.No.23/1, where houses are constructed and it is in her possession and enjoyment. After the death of father and mother, plaintiff separated from her family by relinquishing her right in all other properties including the schedule property. Defendant admitted that, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant purchased the suit, however, claimed that, the suit property was thrown into common stock and same was got divided by the defendant and his brother under a Partition Deed. He also claimed that, the defendant and his family members wanted to start business and they started the flour mills by obtaining the licence in the name of the plaintiff, as she was living in a joint family, however, plaintiff has not invested any money, and she has no right, title and interest in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.