The judgment establishes the importance of proving title, possession, and interference in property disputes. It emphasizes the significance of documentary evidence, Court orders, and lack of dispute as crucial factors in determining ownership and possession rights.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

These two appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 12.03.2004 decreeing O.S.No.90/1996 and dismissing O.S.No.131/1997 on the file of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Davanagere.

2. The factual matrix of these two suits are in respect of very same parties and also in respect of very same house property bearing door No.307, both the plaintiff and defendants are claiming the rights in respect of suit schedule properties which are mentioned in respect of suits seeking relief of declaration and injunction.

3. The gist of the plaint in O.S.No.90/1996 is that the plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the schedule property which has been purchased from one Sri B.B. Srinivas under a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1995 to whom it was bequeathed by his mother Smt. Sarasvathamma through a registered WILL in the year 1993. It is also the case of the plaintiff that originally that property was purchased by Late father of Sarasvathamma i.e., Murugesh Modaliar for a valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 21.07.1934 in the form of an open Site No.15 measuring East to West 100 feet and North to South 40 feet and by constructing two houses was enjoying in his life time. After his death Smt. Sarasvathamma who was the only daughter had succeeded to the said property. There are number of civil disputes between her and her sons and daughters. The name of her husband was late Balakrishna Modaliar and he had died long ago. Thus the plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 04.12.1995 has become the owner in possession of the suit house and khata stands in his name. He contends that during the month of December 1996, the 1st defendant who in fact is the resident of Madras some how managed the local Police Officer i.e., defendant-2 for dispossession of the plaintiff from schedule house and a case was registered by making allegation that Late B.B. Srinivas had got created the fictitious WILL in his name. The plaintiff is in personal occupation of the suit house for his residence. Therefore, he prayed this Court to declare him as an absolute owner in possession of schedule property with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with its peaceful possession and enjoyment.

4. The case against the second defendant-Police officer got dismissed and the third defendant so-called purchaser of the schedule property from the first defendant has been impleaded.

5. Both the defendants have appeared through learned counsel and filed their common Written Statement. The gist in brief is that the fact of deceased Murugesh Modaliar purchased site measuring 100ft x 40ft and after constructing the house enjoyed his own title is not fully correct. Deceased Smt. Sarasvathamma alone was not the daughter. There were other daughters namely Smt. Kamalmma, Nagarathnamma and Sarojamma. Hence after his death Smt. Sarasvathamma alone could not succeed the entire property and it would not be her exclusive streedhan property and that she could not execute a registered WILL in favour of her son Late B.B. Srinivas and the said WILL is created and the said Sarasvathamma could not have any valid right to execute the Will in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. The Taluka Magistrate proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The contention was taken in the written statement that Late Balakrishna Modaliar, husband of Sarasvathamma had purchased the entire schedule property in the name of his father in law Murugesh Modaliar as a benamidar and he had even mortgaged it once in the year 1942 in favour of Gurunathappa Bondade under a registered Mortgage Deed. Thereafter Balakrishna Modaliar has gifted the suit schedule property in favour of his daughter i.e., first defendant through a registered Gift Deed dated 06.05.1960, and she has obtained endorsement from the City Municipality, Davangere for transfer of Khatha in her name. Besides, in the year 1972 she had leased out that property to one Khamithkar Na