MALLAWWA AND ORS. Vs. RAMAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 304/2007 have preferred this appeal, assailing judgment and decree dated 16.03.2012 passed in R.A. No. 110/2011 by the Fast Track Court and Ad -hoc District Judge, Hukken, sitting at Gokak, by which, judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, at Gokak, in O.S. No. 304/2007 dated 01.03.2011 has been confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial Court.

(3.) Appellant - plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a declaration that plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 7 are the owners of suit property and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering with their peaceful possession of suit property. Suit property is agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 139, measuring 12 acres 31 guntas, situated in Khanagaon village. In the same survey number an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas on the western side has been sold. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 are wife and children of Pakkappa, who is the brother of Yallappa. Both Pakkappa and Yallappa are dead. They are the children of Shivappa and Santawa. Shivappa and Fakirappa were brothers. Suit property is ancestral joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 7. In the year 1944 Shivappa had sold 1 acre 6 guntas in Sy. No. 139 to Shivalmgawa for Rs. 200/ - under a registered sale deed. The remaining extent of 12 acres 31 guntas continued to be in possession of Pakkappa, plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 7. After the death of Pakkappa and Yallappa, plaintiffs and defendants No. 4 to 7 are the owners and only legal heirs and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Taking undue advantage of their innocence, defendants No. 1 to 3 created bogus and illegal documents in collusion with revenue officials and got their names entered in the record of rights. When this came to their knowledge, they found that names of defendants No. 1 to 3 were entered in the revenue records and they were trying to dispossess plaintiffs from their possession. Plaintiffs requested defendants not to do such illegal acts, but they did not heed to their requests. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have clouded the title of plaintiffs to suit land. Hence, they have sought the relief of declaration and injunction.