Manjappa vs Smt. Lalithamma

Ravi Malimath, J.—The case of plaintiff is that the suit schedule property belonged to his father. That the father had no male issues. He had 6 daughters. The plaintiff is one of them. Her father decided to entrust the management of the suit schedule properties to her. She alleges that the defendant having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, is causing interference with her possession and enjoyment over the same. That he is alleged to have created certain documents of the suit schedule properties in collusion with the revenue officials. That he is making an effort to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the instant suit was filed for declaration and consequential relief. On service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. He submitted that the suit schedule property belongs to the family of Bhadramma and Manjaiah, namely, the grand parents of the plaintiff. That they had fostered him from his childhood and gave the schedule properties to him. Hence, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owner. He has denied all other allegations made against him.

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues : -

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that after the death of her husband and after the daughter ousted from the house of her husband''s house, the sisters of the plaintiff permitted her to look after the suit schedule properties and also decided that the plaintiff is the rightful owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and also permitted her to look-after the house of the plaintiff''s father by getting back her from Santhebachanahalli along with her daughter Rohini and this has been decided during the lifetime of the plaintiff''s father ?

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has no right or ownership over the suit schedule properties ?

Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got right and interest over the suit schedule properties and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff?

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant got change the khata of suit schedule properties to his name by colluding with the revenue officials?

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant tried to sell the suit schedule properties to others even though he has no right, interest over the suit schedule properties on the basis of the forged documents?

Whether the defendant proves that he is the "Sakumaga" of the late Sri. Manjaiah and late Smt. Bhadramma ?

Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit?"

The plaintiff was examined as RW. 1 among two other witnesses and 23 documents were marked. On behalf of the defendant he was examined as D.W. 1 among another 3 witnesses and 7 documents were marked. Issues 1, 3 to 5 & 7 were held in the negative and Issue Nos. 2 & 6 were held in the affirmative. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred a regular appeal. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. The defendant was restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is erroneous. That the appellate Court failed to consider the material evidence on record. Hence, he pleads that substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the impugned judgment & decree does not call for any interference. He contends that the entire case is based on appreciation of facts which is just and proper. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

Heard learned counsels. The first appellate Court was of the view that the trial Court committed an error in misreading the evidence and material on record. That admittedly, the suit schedule property belongs to the parents of the plaintiff. They did not have any male issues. It is also admitted that the parents died intestate. The trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove her exclusive title. The finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the title of the suit schedule property was affirmed by the appellate Court. There is no appeal filed by the plaintiff questioning such a finding. So far as possession is concerned, the first appellate Court was of the view that substantial material evidence has been led-in to show that the properties belong to the parents of the plaintiff and after their death the properties came to be entered in the name of the plaintiff. The reasoning assigned by the appellate Court so far as possession is concerned is just and proper and based on material evidence on record. On the other hand, the claim of the defendant of his exclusive possession was negated by the first appellate court. No documents were produced by him to show his title over the suit schedule property. Even during the cross-examination of the plaintiff he has admitted that when he was admitted to the School his father''s name was shown as Manjaiah though his natural father''s name was Rajanna. The same was not accepter) by the first appellate Court. The appreciation of evidence by the first appellate Court is just and proper. It cannot be said that the same is perverse or misconceived.

The reasoning assigned by the first appellate Court are just and proper. I do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. The entire case of the appellant revolves around facts. Consequently, in the absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.