Karnataka High Court
Sri. Devarao Pawar S/O Late Siddojirao ... vs Smt.Ramabai W/O Srinivasarao Bhange on 4 February, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
R.S.A.NO.202/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Devarao Pawar
S/o Late Siddojirao Pawar
Since dead by L.Rs
1(a) Smt. Lalitha Bai
42 years
W/o Ganapathrao Ghatge
D/o Late Devarao Pawar
Gavdgere Village & Post
Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District
1(b) Sri.Rukmangada Rao Pawar
Aged 36 years
S/o Late Devarao Pawar
Manchabyanhally Village
Gavdgere Hobli & Post
Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District
1(c) Smt.Sujatha Bai
Aged 28 years
W/o Shashidhara Rao Gavade
S/o Late Devarao Pawar,
House No.262/2,
Vijinapura, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore
1(d) Smt.Mamatha Bai
Aged 26 years
W/o Jagadishrao Kadam
D/o Late Devarao Pawar
Gavdgere Village & Post Hunsur Taluk,
2
Mysore District
2. Smt.Radhabai
Aged 62 years
W/o Devarao Pawar
3. Sri.Diwakararao
Aged 34 years
W/o Devarao Pawar
All are R/at. Machabayanhally Village
Gavdgere Hobli, Hunsur Tq.
Mysore District. ...Appellants
(By Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, Adv.)
AND:
1. Smt.Ramabai
Aged about 92 years
W/o. Srinivasarao Bhange
Since dead by her legal heirs
a) Sri.Venkobarao Bhange
Aged about 73 years
S/o late Ramabai
b) Sri.Krishnojirao Bhange
Aged about 70 years
S/o late Ramabai
Both are residing at
Kalenhally Village,
Kasaba Hobli, K.R.Nagar Tq.
Mysore District.
c) Sri.Ramachandrarao Bhange
Aged about 67 years
S/o late Ramabai
R/at No.28, Bazaar Raod,
K.R.Nagar Town, Mysore District.
3
d) Smt.Kamala Bai
Aged about 67 years
D/o late Ramabai
W/o Late Rathnojirao Padathore
R/at. Maragowdanahally Village
GAvdgere Hobli,
Hunsur Tq., Mysore District
2. Smt.Devoo Bai
Aged 85 years
W/o Late Bhagavatharao Shinde
Since dead by her legal heirs
2(a) K.S.Ramachandra
Aged about 55 years
S/o. Late Bahavatharao Shinde
2(b) Smt.Devoo Bai
Major
D/o Late Bhagavatharao Shinde
No. 2(a) and 2(b) are residing at
D.No.28, Bazaar Road,
K.R.Nagar Town,
Mysore District. ...Respondents
(By Smt.Jayashree, for Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, Advs.
for R1(A, B, D) & R2(A)
bR1(c) served)
This RSA is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C
against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009
passed in R.A.No.51/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge
(Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur, dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.06.1999
passed in O.S.No.51/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge
(Jr. Dn.), Hunsur.
4
This RSA coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This is a defendants second appeal questioning the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.51/1999 dated 22.10.2009 by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur, whereunder the Lower Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Hunsur, in O.S.No.51/1995 dated 23.06.1999, whereunder Trial Court had declared plaintiffs to be the absolute owners of suit schedule properties and had directed the defendants to handover suit schedule properties within two months and also directed the defendants to pay compensatory cost of Rs.1,000/- to plaintiffs and had held that plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits of Rs.4,680/- with proportionate costs and ordered for enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for future mesne profits.
2. Heard Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Smt.Jayashree, appearing 5 on behalf of Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 (a), (b) and (d) and respondent No.2(a). Respondent No.1(c) is served and unrepresented. Memo filed on 03.08.2010 by the learned counsel for appellants to treat other respondents, who are already on record as legal heirs of respondent No.2(b), came to be accepted vide order dated 25.08.2010 and in view of the same, service of notice on all the respondents has been complete and present appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed in the year 1999, and as such it has been taken up for final disposal by the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties though it is listed for admission.
3. It is the contention of Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Sri. Shettojirao Pawar, who had three sons Sriyuths. Siddojirao Pawar, Devojirao Pawar and Bhyrojirao Pawar and there was no partition and division of properties belonging to the joint family by metes and bounds and Courts below erred in 6 accepting the plea put forth by plaintiffs with regard to oral partition having taken place 40 years prior to the date of filing of the suit and said finding is without any supporting documentary evidence available on record and as such judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court deserves to be set aside and suit be dismissed by formulating the substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal memorandum and answering the same in favour of appellants.
4. He would elaborate his submission by contending that judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is contrary to material evidence on record, particularly Exhibits-P19 to P26 (RTC extracts), which depicted that there was no partition of suit schedule properties and as such there is improper appreciation of evidence by Trial Court and affirmation thereof by the Lower Appellate Court being contrary to material records, substantial question of law formulated in the appeal memorandum 7 would arise for consideration inter-se between parties to be adjudicated and answered.
5. Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel for appellants with a feeble voice would also contend that suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and suit for possession ought to have been filed within three years from the date of alleged dispossession and as such, suit filed after period of six years was not maintainable and it was liable to be rejected and Trial Court having not done so lower appellate court could not have dismissed the appeal and as such said exercise is required to be undertaken by this court by formulating substantial question of law and suit be dismissed by allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, Smt.Jayashree, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1(a) to (d) & 2(a) would support the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court and she would draw the attention of the court to the judgment of Trial 8 Court, whereunder it has taken into consideration the entire evidence placed by the parties to the lis to decree the suit, which conclusion are based on appreciation of material evidence tendered by the parties and as such she submits that finding recorded by Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is a finding of fact and there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, much less the material facts would give rise for formulating substantial question of law inter-se between parties and formulating of substantial question of law would not arise in the instant appeal and as such she prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, following facts would emerge:
8. Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title on the one hand and 1st defendant in the instant suit on the other hand have been litigating over the same property at 9 various forums in different suits undisputedly for the past 40 years, as could be seen from the records.
9. Be that as it may. Plaintiff filed the present suit in question for declaration of her title and for a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of suit schedule properties and for past mesne profits of Rs.16,800/- and enquiry into future mesne profits with costs, contending interalia that father of plaintiffs inherited suit schedule properties in an oral partition effected by his father late Shettojirao Pawar, who had three sons namely Sriyuths. Siddojirao Pawar, Devojirao Pawar and Bhyrojirao Pawar. Second son, Sri.Devojirao Pawar was the husband of Smt.Krishnabai namely, father and mother of plaintiffs. It was alleged that in the suit that a partition had occurred more than 60 to 70 years between Shettoji Rao, original prepositus and his sons and in the said partition suit schedule properties fell to the share of Devojirao Pawar-father of the plaintiffs and Bhyrojirao Pawar, his younger brother, in equal shares to each of them i.e., in item Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of suit 10 schedule properties. However, in item No.3 of the suit schedule properties all three brothers were allotted equal share of 3 guntas each as it was a 'hittal' (backyard). It was contended that plaintiff's father got share towards southern side in equal measurement and his younger brother Bhyrojirao Pawar got his share on the northern side in item Nos.1 and 2 and also southern half extent of item No.4 of schedule and late Devojirao Pawar was allotted 3 guntas in the middle i.e., item No.3 of the suit schedule property.
10. It was contended that plaintiffs have been cultivating the suit schedule property and also claim that their late mother Smt. Krishnabai had executed a registered Will on 09.07.1966 and under the said document also they claimed right over suit schedule properties. It was further contended that somewhere in the month of June and July 1989, defendants started obstructing and interfering with lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties by plaintiffs and as such they have filed the present suit seeking for 11 declaration and possession. It was also contended that during the lifetime of plaintiff's mother-Smt.Krishnabai, there were several litigations between her on the one hand and 1st defendant on the other hand and also another brother of 1st defendant i.e., Bhyrojirao Pawar and they had filed suits. It was also contended that Bhyrojirao had filed a suit against mother of plaintiffs which was at the instance of 1st defendant and contended that in all these litigations it has been categorically and consistently held by the Courts that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule properties. On these grounds they sought for relief prayed for in the suit to be granted.
11. Defendants on service of suit summons, appeared and filed their written statement and contended that there was no partition either oral or in writing at any point of time and it was contended that item No.3 of suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the father of 1st defendant and it was purchased in the year 1929 from one Sri.Boranaika. It was contended that second son of Shettojirao namely, Devojirao Pawar under 12 whom the plaintiffs are claiming, as also Smt.Krishnabai, were never in possession of suit schedule properties and father of 1st defendant was in possession of suit schedule properties and same is within the knowledge of plaintiffs. They also contend that they have perfected their right over suit schedule properties by adverse possession and they sought for dismissal of suit. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court has framed following issues for its adjudication:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have unlawfully dispossessed them from the suit schedule properties during June or July 1989 and May 1990 respectively?
3. Whether the defendants prove that they have perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the past mesne profits of Rs.16,800/- from the defendants?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and possession as prayed for?13
6. To what decree or order?"
12. 1st plaintiff got herself examined as PW1 and examined 5 witnesses on her behalf as PW2 to PW6 and in all produced 36 documents and got them marked as Exhibits-P1 to P36. 1st defendant got himself examined as DW1 and also examined 4 witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and in all produced 12 documents and got them marked as Exhibits-D1 to D12. Trial Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence has come to a conclusion that from the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiffs, it was self evident that very same 1st defendant was a party to earlier proceedings, whereunder a compromise petition had been entered into between Smt. Krishnabai and 1st defendant, and possession was delivered accepting the title of Smt. Krishnabai and as such there was no further right to the 1st defendant to claim any title over the suit schedule properties and even otherwise subsequent litigations which was instigated by the very same 1st defendant was also decreed or dismissed in favour of Smt. Krishnabai and present 14 plaintiffs, and as such it held that plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as lawful owners of suit schedule properties and accordingly dismissed the suit.
13. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.51/1995 dated 23.06.1999, defendants filed an appeal in RA No.51/1999 before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur. Lower Appellate Court after considering the arguments advanced by respective learned Advocates appearing for the parties formulated following points for its consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties?
2. Whether the defendants have perfected the title to the suit schedule properties by adverse possession?
3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-06-1999, passed in O.S.No.51/1995 by the Trial Court, in decreeing the suit is contrary to law, facts, evidence and probabilities of the case and as such, it is liable to be interfered with?
4. What order or decree?"15
14. On reappreciation of evidence and after considering the arguments advanced by the respective learned Advocates appearing for the parties, Lower Appellate Court has affirmed the findings of Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
15. In the light of submissions made and contentions raised (paragraphs 3 to 5) hereinabove by Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for appellant, it has to be examined as to whether there is any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, which requires to be formulated, adjudicated and answered.
16. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties. However, by way of ready reference following genealogical tree of the family, if extracted, would throw better light for appreciation of contentions raised in the appeal and as such same is extracted herein below:
16
Shettojirao Pawar Siddojirao Devojirao Bhyrojirao Pawar Pawar Pawar Devarao Pawar Rama Bai (1st Defendant) (Plaintiff) Radha Bai Devoo Bai (2nd defendant) (D/o plaintiff) Divakar Rao (3rd Defendant) Note: Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are Wife and Son of 1st defendant.
17. The original prepositus of family was one Sri.Shettojirao Pawar, he had three sons namely, Sriyuths. Siddojirao Pawar, Devojirao Pawar, and Bhyrojirao Pawar. Plaintiffs are claiming their right, title and interest over suit schedule properties through the second son of Shettojirao Pawar viz. Devojirao Pawar who had married Smt.Krishnabai and 1st plaintiff to the 17 daughter of Devojirao Pawar and Smt.Krishnabai. 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of 1st defendant. 1st defendant is the son of Siddojirao Pawar and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are his wife and son respectively. 3rd son of Shettojirao Pawar namely, Bhyrojirao Pawar is not a party to present proceedings. It was the specific stand of plaintiffs in the suit that in the partition that took place between deceased Shettojirao Pawar and his 3 sons, suit schedule properties was allotted to the share of Devojirao Pawar and he was in possession of same and after his demise his wife Krishnabai and their only son Pandurangarao (Pandojirao Pawar) were in possession and enjoyment. Said Pandurangarao Pawar (Pandojirao Pawar) is also said to have expired about 50 years back and he was not married. 1st plaintiff is the daughter of Smt.Krishnabai and Devojirao Pawar and Smt. Krishnabai is also said to have expired 15 or 16 years prior to the date of present suit. During the lifetime of Smt.Krishnabai i.e., mother of 1st plaintiff there were several litigations between her and 18 1st defendant herein and as such they are summarized as under:
18. Re. O.S.No.188/1977:
Mother of 1st plaintiff, Smt. Krishnabai filed a suit against 1st defendant, since he was attempting to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property namely, item Nos.1 to 3, and same to be decreed as per Exhibit-P10. On the basis of compromise petition entered into between the parties, which came to be produced in the present suit and marked as Exhibit-P38, it was specifically agreed to by defendant therein i.e., 1st defendant herein that at the instance of friends and well wishers he has agreed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said suit schedule properties, which is in possession of Smt.Krishnabai (mother of 1st plaintiff). In view of compromise petition filed by 1st defendant, suit came to be decreed as per Exhibit-P10. However, curiously, in the present suit, 1st defendant who was sole defendant in O.S. No.188/1977 raised a plea that he had affixed his 19 signature on a blank paper. Trial Court has rightly noticed that 1st defendant is not a person, who is illiterate and who is unaware of the worldly affairs and it has also noted that 1st defendant is engaged in the profession of getting documentation done and as such it disbelieved the version put forth by 1st defendant before the Trial Court. Yet another fact which tilted in favour of plaintiffs to disbelieve the version of 1st defendant was the fact that Trial Court in O.S.No.188/1977 while accepting compromise petition had endorsed to the effect "admitted before me" to raise a presumption that in the presence of the parties and after the parties admitted the contents of the compromise petition to be true, it was accepted as having been duly executed. Thus, it found that version or plea now sought to be put forth in the present suit by 1st defendant was a hallow plea. This has also been rightly held by the Lower Appellate Court as a defence not acceptable and same is not contrary to material evidence namely, documentary evidence. 20
19. Re O.S.No.189/1977:
This was a suit filed by Smt.Krishnabai against the brother of 1st defendant namely, Ramrao Pawar and Pandurangarao Pawar i.e., other sons of Siddojirao Pawar. Said suit on contest came to be decreed and defendants therein were directed to hand over the possession of item No.4 of present suit schedule property to plaintiffs mother, Smt.Krishnabai as per judgment and decree which is at Exhibits-P13 and P14.
Pursuant to same possession has been delivered to plaintiffs' mother undisputedly. Even before the Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court, this fact was seriously disputed. However, Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court have rightly come to a conclusion that 1st defendant has not been ask to rebut this fact and as such it has declared that plaintiffs are the owners of item No.4 of suit schedule properties.21
20. Re O.S.No.199/1988:
Brothers of 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.199/1988 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties for larger extent against present plaintiffs and present 1st defendant. In the said suit plaintiffs therein had arrayed 1st defendant as the 5th defendant and described him as 'Bhyragi'. In the said suit 5th defendant (i.e., 1st defendant herein), appeared and conceded to the plea put forward by the plaintiffs therein. In the said suit present plaintiffs had taken specific contention that suit was filed at the instance of 5th defendant therein i.e., 1st defendant herein and this contention raised by plaintiffs was fortified by further act of 1st defendant herein namely, after the dismissal of suit in O.S.No.199/1988, 5th defendant therein i.e., 1st defendant herein alone challenged the same in R.A.No.50/1993. Original plaintiffs did not challenge the judgment and decree of dismissal passed in O.S.No.199/88.22
Evidence tendered by 1st defendant in the said suit was scrutinized by Trial Court in the instant suit and found that 1st defendant herein has been sailing with plaintiffs in O.S.No.199/1988, since there was a categorical admission to the said effect that said suit was filed against the present plaintiffs through his brothers. These facts have been rightly taken note of by the Trial Court to decree the present suit and trial court has also rightly held that man behind the said litigation namely, O.S.No.199/1988 was none other than 1st defendant herein. Lower Appellate Court has also reappreciated the evidence to arrive at a conclusion that plaintiffs are in possession of item Nos.1 to 3 of suit schedule properties.
21. Re. O.S.No.532/1989:
1st defendant and his brother, Bhyrojirao Pawar filed the said suit against the present plaintiffs for declaration of ownership in respect of suit schedule properties and for perpetual injunction in respect of item Nos. 1 to 4 of the present suit schedule properties. Said 23 judgment and decree passed in said suit came to be produced at Exhibits-P4 and P5 and same ended in dismissal of said suit. Aggrieved by the same, 1st defendant herein alone filed an appeal in R.A.No.143/1993, which also came to be dismissed as per Exhibits-P8 and P9.
21. These facts narrated hereinabove would clearly establish that findings recorded by Trial Court in earlier suits relating to item Nos. 1 to 4 of suit schedule properties had reached finality, in so far as plaintiffs herein and 1st defendant and despite such decrees passed against him, 1st defendant was contending that plaintiffs do not have title to the suit schedule properties.
In view of these over helming evidence available on record namely, judgment and decrees above referred to, which clearly establish that plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule properties, Trial Court rightly negatived the contention of 1st defendant. Stray entries made in the revenue records in the name of 1st defendant was also ignored by Trial Court and rightly so by taking into 24 consideration the fact that mother of plaintiffs was an illiterate lady and the fact that judgment and decrees passed by the competent Civil Courts declaring her to be the owner in possession would also rebut the presumption which could have been raised in favour of 1st defendant since the judgment and decree granted in favour of plaintiff's mother was sufficient enough to arrive at a conclusion that plaintiffs are lawful owners of suit schedule properties. Though plaintiffs contended that their mother had executed a registered Will in their favour on 09.07.1966, it was of not much relevance since plaintiffs being Class I legal heirs of deceased Smt.Krishnabai, they were entitled to succeed to the property on the demise of their mother, who was the wife of late Devojirao Pawar even otherwise. Hence, nothing much can be said on this aspect.
22. In view of the above said findings recorded by the Trial Court which came to be reappreciated and considered by the Lower Appellate Court against appellants herein, I am of the considered view that the 25 contention of appellants that findings recorded on Exhibits-P19 to P26 would not be of much relevance and it recedes to background in view of presumption raised under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has stood rebutted by two facts:
1) The evidence tendered by plaintiffs in the instant suit by examining independent witnesses to establish possession;
2) by producing the judgment and decrees passed by the competent Civil Courts admitting the ownership and possession of the suit schedule properties that plaintiffs had possessed at undisputed point of time;
Hence, these two facts would clearly establish that the presumption that could have been raised under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in favour of 1st defendant has stood rebutted.
23. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmities either in the judgment and decree passed by 26 Trial Court as affirmed by Lower Appellate Court to enable this Court to formulate substantial question of law for being adjudicated and answered. Hence, contention of appellants deserves to be rejected and it stands rejected.
24. As already observed hereinabove, 1st defendant herein has been successful in preventing the plaintiffs from enjoying the fruits of decrees obtained by her from the competent Civil Courts by not only filing suit after suit but also obtaining interim orders by using trick and stratagem and as such it has to be examined as to whether appellants are required to be mulcted with cost in the present appeal. The fact that cost should follow the cause is the normal course and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ila Vipin Pandya Vs. Smita Ambalal Patel reported in 2007 (6) SCC 750 has held as under:
"23. We must emphasise that a court is not a forum which can be used for spewing venom and vitriol on the opposite party, and even more alarmingly on the judge hearing the case and counsel 27 representing that party. The written arguments that the respondent had filed in court betray her purpose. The new demands clearly reveal her intention to extort as much as she can from the appellant, who, it must be presumed, is exhausted and drained by the huge number of court proceedings that have been going on for the last 11 years."
25. Coordinate bench of this Court following the judgments of Apex Court with regard to levy of cost in the case of Mohammad Ismail vs. The State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 1985 Kar. 123 to the following effect:
"27. The general rule is that costs follow the event and the successful party gets his costs from the unsuccessful party cannot be properly followed on the facts and circumstances of this case. Without any doubt, the petitioner and his wife have been instrumental in harassing respondent-3 in more than one legal proceeding. With due regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, this is one of those rare cases in which I should direct the petitioner to pay costs and exemplary costs which I assess at Rs.500/- to respondent-3"
26. As noticed hereinabove in the instant case 1st defendant has been hunting the wife of Devojirao Pawar 28 from the year 1977 and avoiding and evading to even comply with a compromise decree to which he is a party as per Exhibit-P38. This itself clearly go to establish the recalcitrant attitude adopted by 1st defendant and he has been undauntingly filing suit after suit or as held by Trial Court as per Exhibits-P6 and P7 instigated his brothers to file suit (O.S.No.199/1988) against the present plaintiffs which would clearly establish the fact that 1st defendant is bent upon scuttling the judgment obtained by the plaintiffs from competent Civil Courts and to prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the decree. As such this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs - appellants have to be mulcted with exemplary cost and as such a cost of Rs.10,000/- is being awarded to be paid by the appellants to the legal heirs of original plaintiffs namely R1(a) to R1(d) and R2(a) and R2(b) jointly within 30 days from today. Failing which, they would be entitled to recover the same by filing execution petition before the jurisdictional court. Hence, I pass the following:
29
ORDER
1. Appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.
2. Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in O.S.No.51/1999 dated 23.06.1999 as affirmed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur, in RA No.51/1999 dated 22.10.2009 are hereby affirmed.
3. Appellants to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents 1(a) to 1(d) and 2(a) to 2(b) within 30 days from today failing which they would be entitled to execute the same by filing a execution petition before the competent court.
4. Registry to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR