A plaintiff must independently prove ownership in a title declaration suit; reliance on the defendant's weaknesses is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 passed in R.A. No.25 of 2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Basavaiah had two sons, by name Bylaiah and Rangaiah; Bylaiah had a wife by name Seebamma alias Seebakka. Both of them are no more. They had no issues.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that Rangaiah had a wife by name Narasamma and they had a son by name Obalaiah. The plaintiff is the son of Obalaiah.

7. After the death of Bylaiah, the plaintiff's grandfather i.e., Rangaiah succeeded to the properties as the son of Basavaiah by way of succession. He became the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the defendant is the son of late Sannamma and taking advantage of the fact that the name of the father of the plaintiff (Obalaiah) and of the defendant is same, the defendant created false documents in respect of the suit schedule properties, by virtue of pavati varasa (succession on death of parents) and managed to get the properties in his name in collusion with the Revenue Authorities and is trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties.

8. The plaintiff filed an application before the Revenue Authorities for change of khata and pahani in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties and the same is pending. A cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and injunction. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

9. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that Basavaiah had two sons by name Bylaiah and Rangaiah. It is denied that both Bylaiah and Rangaiah lived in the joint family. It is contended that Rangaiah was unmarried and hence, the question of succession of the suit properties by Obalaiah does not arise.

10. It is contended that the defendant is the son of Sannamma. Since Seebamma had no issues, she brought up Sannamma, i.e., mother of the defendant, from her childhood and she was under the care and custody of Seebamma. After attaining the majority, Sannamma was looking after the welfare of Seebakka alias Seebamma, and the son- in-law of Seebamma was doing coolie work and earned some money. After the death of Bylaiah, Seebakka was in a financial trouble and for the performance of a funeral ceremony of her husband, she decided to sell the properties of her husband, which were succeeded by her. After the demise of her husband-Bylaiah, Seebakka executed a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1948 and sold three items including Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration to defendant's mother-Sannamma and delivered the possession in favour of Sannamma; from the date of purchase, Sannamma was in possession and enjoyment of the said two properties of the suit schedule till her death.

11. It is contended that Sannamma was cultivating Item No.3 of the suit schedule