The court affirmed that the deceased's legal heirs retain ownership rights to family property, provided there is adequate evidence of succession and possession.

JUDGMENT :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.42/2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) and consequently, to restore the Judgment and decree dated 11.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.277/2014 (Old No.114/2014) by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sindhanur (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. The appellant has filed the suit in O.S.No.277/2014 against the respondent Nos.1 to 6 for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.161/*/9, measuring 2 acres 22 guntas of irrigated land of K.Hosahalli village, taluka Sindhanur.

3. The brief facts of the case of the appellant/plaintiff contended in the plaint are as under:

That this suit is filed in respect of Sy.No.161/*/9 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas of K.Hosahalli village. The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Eshwarappa S/o Basanna Ganiger. The husband of the plaintiff died about 20 years back leaving behind the plaintiff and his daughter Hanumamma W/o Erappa Gorluti. The daughter of the plaintiff died intestate and issueless in the year 2010. Hence the plaintiff became the owner of all the properties of her husband as successor.

Survey No.161 is totally measuring 5 acres 27 guntas and it is the ancestral property of husband of the plaintiff and his brother Somappa. The said Somappa as the Kartha of the family has sold 3 acres towards south out of 5 acres 22 guntas in Survey No.161 of K.Hosahalli village to one Kantipudi Ragavalu under a sale deed No.1125/1965 dated 31.12.1965. In turn the said Ragavalu sold the said land to Kotapalli Ammiraju through a sale deed No.1057/67-68 dated 25.07.1967. The 6th defendant purchased the said land from Kotapalli Ammiraju through a sale deed No. 1102/88-89 dated 12.07.1988. The suit schedule property was duly mutated in the name of husband of the plaintiff as per mutation entry No.17 dated 05.07.1968. The suit schedule property was exclusively fallen to the share of husband of the plaintiff in a family oral partition which took place about 20 years between the husband of the plaintiff and sons of his brother. The suit schedule property had fallen to the share of husband of the plaintiff as no house property had fallen to the share of the husband of the plaintiff. After the death of husband of the plaintiff the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in mutation entry No.58 dated 18.12.2000. The defendants are related to each other. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the sons of defendant No.5. The defendant No.6 is the brother of husband of the defendant No.5. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 asked the plaintiff to give the suit land for cultivation on lease basis for 12 bags. The plaintiff declined to give the land. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 started to cause trouble to the plaintiff from 4 months even without having any right or interest over the property. They are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 25.10.2013 and the defendants replied to the said notice on 07.11.2013 taking the contention that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the property and she has not succeeded to the suit schedule property. As there was some mistake in the survey number, clarification notice was issued to the defendants on 09.11.2013 which was served on 11.11.2013. There was no reply to the said notice. As the defendants strongly denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit