Plaintiffs failed to establish ownership and prove fraud related to a sale deed, resulting in the lawsuit being barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgme and decree dated 04.08.2015, passed in R.A.No.26/2014, by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2014, passed in O.S.No.22/2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants.

3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, delivery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the absolute owners of the suit properties. One Kempegowda is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2. Kempegowda did not have male issues. He performed the marriage of his daughter to one Ningegowda and kept them in his house after marriage. In the year 1985, Kempegowda passed away. The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Kempegowda have succeeded to the suit properties. The defendant No.1 started proclaiming that the revenue entries are standing in his name and as such he is the owner of the suit properties. The plaintiffs enquired about the entries in the name of defendant No.1 and found that the defendant No.1 by playing fraud on Kempegowda and plaintiff No.1, got executed a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1984. The said sale deed is sham, bogus, and fraudulent. It is contended that no consideration amount was paid to Kempegowda or plaintiff No.1. The said sale deed is not binding on them. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the suit schedule properties have been sold in favour of defendant No.1 by Kempegowda and plaintiff No.1 to meet out the family, agricultural and marriage expenses of plaintiff No.2. Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was sold in favour of defendant No.2 about 15-16 years back, item No.4 was sold in favour of defendants No.3 to 5 under registered sale deed dated 15.10.2003. Thus, item Nos.2 and 4 of the suit schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of defendants No.2, 3 and 4. The possession of plaintiffs over item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is merely permissive possession. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence on these grounds, sought for dismissal of the suit against defendant No.1.

5. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement contending that he had purchased item No.2 of the suit schedule properties from defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 18.09.1987. Since from the date of purchase, the defendant No.2 is in possession of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. There is no cause of action to file the suit in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit in so far as item No.2 is concerned.

6. Defendants No.3 to 5 filed written statement contending that Kempegowda sold the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1 who in turn sold item No.4 of the suit schedule properties in their favour under registered sale deed dated 15.10.2003, and they are the bona fide purchasers and in possession of item No.4 of the suit schedule properties and denied the averments and contentions made in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. The