KADIRAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THIMMAKKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009 in R.A No. 65/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Devanahalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2007 in O.S. No. 68/2001 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents are the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 21.10.1974 is a nominal sale deed and inoperative, and to cancel the same. They have also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the property bearing Sy. No. 64 measuring 3 acres including karab land situated at Haralunagenahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, morefully described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint was originally a Thoti inam land. On 16.9.1992, the said land was regranted in favour of Chikkalachappa, the grand father of the plaintiffs. Chikkalachappa bequeathed a portion of 'A' schedule property to the plaintiffs under a Will dated 2.3.1993 which is morefully described in 'B' schedule property. After the death of their grand father on 18.9.1995, they have become the absolute owners of 'B' schedule property. The revenue records of the said property stand in their name. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property as owners. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instigation and support of defendant No. 3 tried to interfere with their possession in respect of the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess them from the said property. The plaintiffs came to know the illegal acts of the defendants and rushed to the spot and resisted the defendants by timely intervention of the elders and well wishers. Within few days from the date of incident, the plaintiffs received a notice from Tahsildar to appear in a case. Thereafter, they verified the records and came to know the existence of the sale deed dated 21.10.1974 executed by their grand father Chikkalachappa in favour of the defendants. It is contended that the said sale deed was not acted upon. The sale deed was executed by their grand father as a security for certain loan transaction. Their grand father had settled the said transaction during his lifetime. They continued to be in possession of the said property.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: