A suit to establish rights over ancestral properties can be dismissed as time-barred if filed after the limitation period, regardless of claims of joint family ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Sumantha S., learned counsel representing Sri P.B. Appaiah, counsel for the appellants. None represents the respondents.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court challenging the validity of judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hassan in O.S.No.183/2001, dated 26.02.2007.

3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the trial Court.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present regular first appeal are as under:

4.1. A suit for declaration came to be filed by the plaintiffs in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’) and also holding that redemption of mortgage in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit property will not bind the plaintiffs. Further, declare that the sale deed dated 10.02.1976 in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 does bind the plaintiffs and also for possession.

4.2. Suit properties are the agricultural land situated at Siddapura village, Halebeedu Hobli, Beluru Taluk, which belonged to the plaintiffs.

4.3. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that Veerabhadregowda - grandfather of the plaintiffs has got three sons by name Puppegowda, Channegowda and Mallegowda. First son Puppegowda died without marriage. Second son Channegowda is the father of defendant No.2 and third son Mallegowda has got two children namely, Shivarudregowda, who is plaintiff No.1 and Veerabhadregowda. Said Veerabhadregowda died as a bachelor.

5. Plaintiffs further contended that suit properties and three other items of properties had fallen to the share of father of plaintiff No.1 and Puppegowda in the year 1940-41. After death of Puppegowda, father of plaintiff No.1 and other plaintiffs and his brother Veerabhadregowda were jointly enjoying the suit properties.

6. Plaintiff No.1 and his brother Veerabhadregowda for their family necessity, executed a sale deed in favour of Mallegowda @ Kullegowda on 28.07.1952. According to plaintiffs, said sale deed was a nominal sale deed and it was executed for security for the loan amount borrowed by plaintiff No.1 and his brother Veerabhadregowda. Brother of plaintiff No.1 Veerabhadregowda was looking after the suit properties and three other properties. Veerabhadregowda again purchased the suit properties on 28.06.1954 from Mallegowda and he mortgaged the said property to one Sannamallegowda in a sum of Rs.200/-. Subsequently plaintiff No.1 and his brother discharged the loan and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

7. Plaint averments further reveal that despite sufficient difficulty to discharge the loan, plaintiff No.1 for earning the money, left Bhandarikatte Village in young age and settled in Davanagere City and he worked in Oil Mill belonging to Basappa. Veerabhadre Gowda died subsequently intestate.

8. Plaint averments further reveal that defendant No.2 who is an elderly member of their family used to look after the properties left by Veerabhadregowda as plaintiff No.1 along with his family were residing at Davangere. Defendant No.2 used to give some money out of the crops grown in the suit properties to the plaintiffs and it was contented that plaintiff No.1 paid sum of Rs.200/- to defendant No.2 to discharge the mortgage money borrowed from Sannamallegowda. But, defendant No. 2 clandestinely got released the suit properties in his favour after paying the mortgage money to Sannamallegowda on 03.03.1972 and subsequently without the knowledge of p