JUDGMENT :

The respondent herein initially filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of 24 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.107 of village Kusnoor, taluk and district Kalaburagi (for short, ‘suit property’) and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing her peaceful possession over the suit property. By amending the plaint, she claimed further declaration that three sale deeds dated 25.02.1995 executed by Abdul Basit in favour of the defendants did not bind her interest and that they were null and void.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the parties are referred with respect to their ranks in the suit. Khudija Bee, the mother of the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property by virtue of a decree passed in O.S.No.68/1973. The plea put forward by the plaintiff was that her mother made oral gift of 10 acres of land out of the suit property in her favour on 05.12.1985 by delivering its possession to her and then on 05.01.1989, she executed a memorandum of gift evidencing the past oral gift. After the gift, there remained 14 acres 28 guntas in the possession of Khudija Bee. The plaintiff succeeded to the remaining extent of land of 14 acres 28 guntas after the death of Khudija Bee and thereby she became the owner of entire suit property.

3. The allegation against the defendants in the plaint is that on 14.10.2013, the defendants came near the suit property and tried to dispossess her on the strength of sale deeds said to have been executed on 25.02.1995 in favour of defendants 1 to 5 by one Abdul Bas who was not the owner of the suit land. The name of the plaintiff’s father was Abdul Basit Saheb. Neither the plaintiff’s mother nor the father executed any sale deed in favour of the defendants and therefore the sale deeds might have been created. Defendants asserted their right on the property and asked the plaintiff to hand over the possession to them. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

4. The defendants 1 to 5 in their written statement, admitted that Khudija Bee was the original owner of the suit property. They denied the gift made by Khudija Bee in favour of the plaintiff and delivery of possession of 10 acres of land consequent to the gift. They also denied that the plaintiff succeeded to the remaining extent of 14 acres 28 guntas after the death of Khudija Bee. Their specific case is that they are the bonafide purchasers of suit land for valid consideration from one Abdul Bas @ Abdul Basit S/o Syed Hussain Saheb. They stated that the three names Abdul Bas, Abdul Basit and Syed Abdul Basit referred to the same person who was the husband of Khudija Bee. They denied the relationship of the plaintiff with Khudija Bee as according to them, the couple did not have issues. After the death of Khudija Bee, revenue records were mutated in the name of Abdul Basit and ascertaining the fact that Abdul Basit was the absolute owner, all the defendants individually purchased certain extent of land in Sy.No.107. In fact in the year 1981, Abdul Bas @ Abdul Basit sold them a house property. The plaintiff being the stranger cannot claim declaration of title over the suit property. There was no valid gift in her favour and therefore suit is to be dismissed.

5. The trial court framed the following issues and additional issues based on the pleadings.

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is having right, title and ownership over the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, she is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, defendants have interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint?

4. What order or decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation?

2. Whether suit of the plaintiff in present form is maintainable?

6. Assessing the oral evidence of the