Ownership of property by female Hindus is absolute under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of financing sources, and establishing adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostility against the true owner.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.132/2005 are before this Court assailing the reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2007 dated 26.02.2009.

2. The factual matrix that is necessary for the purpose of this appeal may be stated as below:

a. The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed a suit against the defendants for relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the construction made in the suit schedule property and for handing over of the possession of the same, and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment.

b. Initially, the suit was filed by Gangavva as a sole plaintiff and later, after her death, her children are brought on record as plaintiffs No.1 to 3. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property, which is described as the property situated at Hospet in ward No.13, new ward No.17 bearing door No.102, new door No.330, bounded by a road on the east and north, property of Katagi Pakkeerappa on the west, property of Jeenagar Hanumanthappa on the south. It is contented that the plaintiff- Gangavva had purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 17.06.1953 for a valuable consideration of Rs.400/- from one Meenahalli Hulagamma and Bharmavva. The vendors had put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly, the Municipal Khata was changed in the name of the plaintiff.

c. Due to heavy rain, the house collapsed and the said premises became a vacant premises having door No.330. The second defendant and his family members tried to put up a construction over the suit schedule property and the plaintiff objected and filed an objection to the Municipal Commissioner, who issued a notice to the defendant No.2 to stop the construction. However, the defendant No.2 continued the interference by proceeding with the construction.

d. The defendants unauthorisedly and illegally started the construction and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.

3. On service of summons, the defendants appeared and they filed the written statement denying the plaint averments.

a. They denied that the plaintiff-Gangavva had purchased the suit schedule property in her individual capacity.

b. It is submitted that one Jambaiah had two wives namely, Sanna Akkamma and the plaintiff. Sanna Akkamma was the elder sister of the plaintiff and the said Jambaiah had purchased the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff, since she had no independent income. There were similar other purchases in the joint names of plaintiff and Sanna Akkamma by the said Jambaiah. It is contended that neither Sanna Akkamma nor the plaintiff had any independent source of income to buy the properties.

c. They further contended that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they have been paying their municipal taxes. It is contended that plaintiff never raised any claim about the ownership. The defendant No.2 believed that suit property belongs to her exclusively. Therefore, it was contended that the defendants had asserted their exclusive ownership and possession and this fact is further corro