Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6903

iv) On perusal of Ex.P.3 i.e., M.E.No.2043 which speaks that on 08.08.1958, Assistant Commissioner, Haveri has regranted the land in favour of Hanumawwa for enjoyment of the property successively. In this respect, Ex.P.5 is the document which shows that the name of Hanumawwa has been entered;

xxiv) The defendants had also preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri in respect of mutation entry made in the name of Hanumawwa. Assistant Commissioner, Haveri has rejected the appeal of the defendants holding that the property stood in the name of Hanumawwa as she became absolute owner of the suit property which was granted in her name. In this regard, even though the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.30, the defendants have not produced any documents to

- 30 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6903 show that the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri was set aside or stayed by a higher forum and the mutation entry stood in the name of Hanumawwa was not in accordance with law; xxv) I am of the clear view that there are cogent revenue documents to show that plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit in respect of its entirety and at no point of time there was any partition of the suit property as claimed by the defendants; xxvi) The defendants No.1 to 9 have utterly failed to discharge the burden casted on them through issues No.3 and 5 to hold that suit property is joint family property and it was partitioned in the year 1967 by Hanumawwa among Yellappa, Kallappa and Kariyappa;