Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Gulbarga in O.S.No.30/2012. The trial Court has decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property i.e. the land in sy.no.84/1 measuring 4-acres 4-guntas and in sy.no.84/2 measuring 1-acre both situated at village Yelavantgi-K, Tq. & District Gulbarga and the trial Court has set aside the revenue entries by virtue of the Mutation Order MR 21/2010-2011 dated :

3. The plaintiff - Smt.Ambubai @ Jagadevi has filed a suit before the trial Court for the following reliefs :-

i) Plaintiff be declared as owner of suit properties Sy.No.84/1 measuring 4 acres 4 guntas with R.A. of Rs.7-25 Ps. situated at village Yelawantagi (K) and Sy. No.84/2 measuring 1 acre, situated at village Yelawantagi (K), Tq.

and Dist: Gulbarga by the alteration and cancellation of MR No.21/2010-11, mutation sanction order dt: 6-7-2011 and the subsequent entries in all the revenue registers and also in the revenue records.

These indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless the source where the purchase money came, is by far, the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another."

23. In this particular case, the plaintiff has produced the sale deeds at Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 and she has categorically stated about the source of money and that, she has paid the said purchase money according to the sale deeds and sale deed recitals show that, the amount was paid by her. She has also produced the document Ex.P-4, which is the mutation order in respect of land sy.no.84/1 and Ex.P-18 to Ex.P-42 are the ROR's in the name of the plaintiff pertaining to the said survey number and the mutation was also effected in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P-4 is the copy of mutation order, Ex.P-5 is the ROR of sy.no.84/1; Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 are the mutation orders; Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 are the certified copy of the ROR's; Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12 are the mutation orders. These documents clearly disclose that, immediately after the sale deeds, the mutation has been effected in the name of the plaintiff and they show that the possession of the said property has been with the plaintiff. This is the legal effect of the transfer immediately after the execution of the sale deeds. Therefore, it shows that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property immediately after the purchase and also custodian of the documents. P.Ws.2 to 4 who are none other than the daughters of P.W.1 and the defendant, they have also categorically stated about the ownership of the plaintiff and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff as owner in possession of the said lands. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquisition of the rights have been immediately reported to the revenue authorities and they have transferred the said property into the name of the plaintiff immediately after the sale deed.

33. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the trial Court on Issue No.1& 2 that, the plaintiff established her ownership over the suit property and the mutation order dated : 6-7-2011 in favour of the defendant vide MR No.21/2010-11 on the basis of Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-15 as illegal is proper and correct. The said finding questioned herein in any manner cannot be found fault with. So the trial Court has answered all the issues in the Affirmative which in no way calls for any interference at the hands of this Court.