Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are brothers being sons of Mallappa Suragond. First defendant is the son of Mahadevappa, who is another son of Mallappa Suragond. The second defendant is the purchaser of the suit property, which consists of agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas in R.S. No.3/2 of Sheelavanth Somapur village, Shiggaon taluk.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was purchased by the first defendant's father Mahadevappa while he was acting as Manager of the joint Hindu family even during the life-time of his father. Their father, Mallappa had eight sons and they were all living in a joint family till 30.01.1964, Mallappa having died somewhere in the year 1963. On 30.01.1964, there took place an oral partition according to which the suit property was allotted jointly to the plaintiffs, and thus, they became the absolute owners of the suit property. But, the first defendant instituted a suit O.S. No.71/1971 in the Court of Munsiff, Savanur, for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs and dispossessed them from the suit property, probably by virtue of an interim order granted in the suit. This suit having been decreed against the plaintiffs, they preferred an appeal R.A. No.18/1973 to the Court of Civil Judge, Haveri. This appeal was also dismissed. Stating that the said suit was merely for permanent injunction and the decree passed therein did not affect their title, they instituted the suit O.S. No.25/1979 seeking declaration of their title over the suit property and for its possession.

4. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 20.08.1991 dismissed the suit. Challenging this judgment, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal R.A. No.4/1992 to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Haveri. The First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 15.09.2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit declaring that they were the absolute owners of the suit property and that they were entitled to its possession. Therefore, the legal representatives of second defendant have preferred this second appeal.

21. The above discussion leads to conclude that the appeal has to be allowed, and therefore, the following :

ORDER
1. R.S.A. No.86/2005 is allowed with cost.
2. The judgment and decree dated 15.09.2004, of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Haveri, in R.A. No.4/1992 is set aside.
3. The Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.1991 in O.S. No.25/1979 on the file of Munsiff, Savanur, is restored.