K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1979 of the Principal Civil Judge, bangalore District, Bangalore, in R. A. No. 11 of 1978 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1977 of the Munsiff, Doddaballapur, in O. S. . No 168 of 1969.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. I/plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 168 of 1969 against defendant No. 1 and his brother hanumantharayappa who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 for recovery of possession of a house bearing No. 53 and vacant site situated at Muppadigatta in madure Hobli, more fully described in the plaint schedule He claimed title to the property under a registered gift deed dated 27-3-1941 executed by his mother in-law Hanumakka. He alleged that the defendants were in possession of the same as trespassers without any manner of right, title and interest and they had not delivered the same when called upon by him to do so

( 3 ) IN his written statement, defendant No. 1 denied the gift deed alleged to have been executed by Hanumakka and the title of the plaintiff to the property. He claimed that it was the ancestral family property of the defendants and they were in possession of the same for over 50 years He also alleged that hanumakka had executed a document on 26-5-1938 in favour of his mother relinquishing ;:jj her rights in her favour and that she had also delivered possession to his mother on the same day. Proceeding further, he stated that the said document has been attested by the plaintiff and he is estopped from denying his title or claiming any title in himself. Alternatively defendant No. 1 alleged that he and the other defendants were in continuous and undisturbed possession and had acquired title by prescription over the said property. He also alleged that the suit was not maintainable and was also barred by time. Defendant No. 2 also filed a separate written statement adopting the written statement of defendant no. 1 and stating the very things that had been stated by defendant No. 1

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed the following issues : (1) Whether the suit house belonged to Hanumakka, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff ? (2) Whether Hanumakka gifted the suit house to the plaintiff and his wife under the registered gift deed dated 27-3-1941 and put them in possession of the same ? (3) Whether Harumakka was staying in the suit house till her death on behalf of the plaintiff and his wife ? (4) Whether defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit house after the death of Hanumakka ? (5) Whether the suit house is the ancestral property of the defendants ? (6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from denying the defendant's title to the suit house as mentioned in para 4 of the 1st defendant's written statement ? (7) Whether the defendants have acquired title to the suit house by adverse possession over the statutory period ? (8) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (9) To what reliefs are the parties entitled ? on a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the learned Munsiff by his judgment and decree dated 28-3-1974 answered all the material issues against the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff filed an Appeal in R. A. No. 119 of 1974 before the Additional Civil Judge, bangalore, who by his judgment and decree dated 12-2-1975 allowed the same and remanded the suit to the learned munsiff for fresh disposal in the light of the directions contained in his judgment, one of which was that he did not permit the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence though he permitted the defendants to do so Against the said judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, the plaintiff filed MSA. No. 150 of 1975 before this Court challenging that part of the direction of the learned Civil judge by which he had precluded him from placing additional evidence. On 22-1-1976, Venkataswami J. , allo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document