Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These two appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and decree dated:23.07.2005 in O.S.No.1/1995 and 31/1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. RA 118/2005 was filed in the court of District Judge, Haveri. By virtue of order passed by this Court in C.P.28/2006, RA 118/2005 was withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Haveri for being decided along with RFA 1275/2005. RA No. 118/2005 has been re- numbered in this court as RFA No.100106/2017.

2. The appellants in RFA 1275/2005 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1/1995. The appellants in RFA No.100106/2017 are defendants No.1, 4 and 5 in O.S. No.31/1995. The case pleaded by the parties before the Trial Court has been summarized as below.

3. The subject matter of the suit O.S.No.1/1995 is 01.26 acres of land out of 4.37 acres in Re-survey No.47/2/A+B+C+D:1 of Puratkeri village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District (referred to as suit property). In O.S.No.31/1995, the properties involved are the said agricultural land and a house property described in schedule A and B of the plaint.

But it has come in evidence that the 1st branch took 4.36 acres and the 2nd branch took 4.37 acres. The plaintiffs further state that in the year 1987, there took place a partition again among the members of the 2nd branch, and according to this partition, Dharanendrappa was allotted 1.26 acres of land as also two rooms on the western side of a house property described in schedule "B" of the plaint.

20. The findings of the Trial Court are that the partitions of the year 1985 and 1987 are proved. The learned Trial Judge has observed that there are no grounds to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW-1 to 5. Ex.P-1 to P-10 disclose that firstly there took place a partition between them and the mutation of schedule A(2) and B(2) properties was accepted in the name of Dharanendrappa. Challenging the order of this mutation, the defendants 1, 4 and 5 preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri in RTC.AP.No.74/94, but this appeal was dismsised. If Dharanendrappa had obtained mutation by giving false report, nothing prevented defendants 1, 4 and 5 from preferring an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad. Further it is held by the learned Trial Judge that these entries, according to section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, have presumptive value. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 and 3 clearly establishes the oral partition that took place in the year 1987. Therefore, if the mutation was accepted in the name of the 1st plaintiff after the death of her husband, it was only on the basis of the oral partition of the year 1987.