IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of valid legal documents, such as registered family arrangements, and highlights the limitations of mutation entries and the requirements for proving adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2020, passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, in O.S.No.70/2016, filed by the appellants under Section 96 read with Order XLI of CPC, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the suit against defendant No.7 to 9.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.4 arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit died and her LR was brought on record. Accordingly, cause-title came to be amended.

3. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience and to avoid confusion.

Facts of the case:

4. That Smt.Basalingavva w/o Venkappa Mudaraddi filed a suit against defendants seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction with an alternative prayer for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties.

5. The plaintiff has described the schedule properties in the plaint which are hereinafter referred to as schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties for the purpose of convenience.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that, by virtue of the two gift deeds dated 17.06.1962 and 06.12.1969 stated to have been executed by Padmavva w/o Shivanappa Nittur, being elder sister of plaintiff, in respect of schedule ‘A’(i) and (ii) and schedule B (i) and (ii) so also schedule A (iii) and(iv), he became the owner and is in possession of the schedule properties.

7. It is her further case that, defendants Nos.1 to 4 are her daughters. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the strangers to the family of the plaintiff. Defendant No.7 is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are the daughters of defendant No.7.

8. The genealogy narrated in the plaint shows that Basalingavva is the plaintiff. She has six children by name Basavva, Kasturi, Laxmavva, Shantavva and Shekavva and a son by name Venkappa who died on 25.01.2015. The aforesaid daughters of Basalingavva i.e., plaintiff, are arrayed as defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Venkappa died leaving behind his wife Manjula arrayed as defendant No.7 and daughters by name Savitha and Kavitha arrayed as defendant Nos. 8 and 9. Defendant Nos.5 is the purchaser of item Nos.3 and 4 of suit schedule ‘A’ property from defendant No.4. This genealogy is not denied by the defendants.

9. It is the specific allegation of the plaintiff that defendant No.5 and 6 in collusion with defendant No.4 created and fabricated a false sale deed. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the husband of defendant No.7, the father of defendants 8 and 9, son of the plaintiff by name Venkappa got their names entered illegally though had no title over the schedule properties without the knowledge of the plaintiff by submitting a `Vardi’ to the Revenue authorities. It is alleged that, defendant No.4 without having any right, title and interest over the suit schedule A (3 and 4) sold the same in favour of defendant No.5 and husband of defendant No.6 illegally. Thus, the said sale deed is void ab initio. Thereafter, defendants 5 and 6 got divided the said properties, each taking 3 acres 20 guntas.

10. It is further alleged that, the aforesaid defendants, without any interest, behind the back of the plaintiff without any title over schedule A (3) property, sold the same in favour of defendant No.5 and husband of defendant No.6.

11. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that based upon the mutation entries and names appearing in the revenue records, defendants 1 to 3 started disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs. Now wife and children of Venkappa i.e., defendant No. 7 to 9, are trying to delete the name of Venkappa and are trying to enter their names in the revenue records.

12. It is further alleged that, defendant No.2 to 4 filed a suit claiming share in their joint family properties by including suit schedule A (1 and 2) lands on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gadag. On getting the suit summons, plaintiff came to know about all these illegal ac