( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District. Judge, Bidar, in R. A. No. 32/2000 dated 2-1-2003 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the court of Civil Judge (Sr Dn.), basavakalyana, in O. S. No. 210/1993 dated 11-8-2000 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for, for declaration of title and injunction against the defendants.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows : the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title to the schedule property and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The suit schedule property is described as 6 acres 33 guntas of land in sy. No. 73 situated at Khandala village, basavakalyana Taluk.

( 3 ) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Sundrabai wife of trimukhrao Patil. Defendant No. 4 is the step mother of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3 is the widow of defendant No. 4's son and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of defendant no. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 were minors and they are under the care and protection of the real mother-defendant No. 3. It is averred in the plaint that Sundrabai was the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property in Sy. No. 73 measuring 6 acres 33 guntas. She was the divided member of the family and she was residing separately from the defendants in House no. 1 -9 situated at Khandala village and the suit land was allotted to her share. The mother of the plaintiffs was cultivating the suit land personally as absolute owner and after her death on 16-10-1992 the plaintiffs being the daughters who are only heirs have succeeded to their property owned by sundrabai. However, since the defendants filed objections before the Village Accountant for entering the name of the plaintiffs and also tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction.

( 4 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement denying the material averments made in the plaint that sundrabai mother of the plaintiffs was the absolute owner of the schedule property. It is contended that the property was allotted to Sundrabai in compromise decree that was passed in O. S. No. 34/1954 in lieu of her maintenance and as per the terms of compromise decree, the property has reverted back to defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit viz. , defendant No. 4 in the present suit and wherefore, after the death of Sundrabai the property has reverted to defendant No. 4 as per the terms of compromise decree in O. S. No. 34/64 and wherefore plaintiffs do not have any property to inherit as property has reverted as per compromise decree in o. S. No. 34/64 and wherefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE trial Court framed issues on the basis of the above pleading. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as PW. 1 and also examined PW-2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P29. On behalf of the defendants, third defendant was examined as DW. 1, defendant also examined as DWs. 2 and 35 and got marked Ex. D1 - compromise deed and Exs. D2 to D4. The trial Court after considering the contention of the parties and the material on record answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the property was allotted to sundrabai in lieu of maintenance after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act (for short 'the Act') and in the compromise decree Ex. D1 itself it is stated that schedule property had been in possession of sundrabai even prior to the said compromise decree in O. S. 34/64 as per Ex. D1 and wherefore the trial Court held that Ex. Dl is the compromise decree entered into between the parties which has become final and as per the said compromis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document