A female Hindu's property acquired is exclusively hers; mutation entries do not convey title. Plaintiff's suit was time-barred due to lack of diligence in asserting her rights.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in O.S.No.43/1995 dated 22.12.2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gokak, sitting at Raibag and the learned III Additional District and Session Judge, Belgaum in R.A.No.17/2006 dated 13.07.2007.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff as may be found from her pleadings is that:

i) Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the plaintiff and the suit lands are bearing Sy.No.101/1B measuring 1 acre 20 gunthas which is part of Sy.No.100/1 measuring 3 acres 32 gunthas situated at Nipnal Village in Raibag Taluk. The said suit property as well as six other lands belonged to the plaintiff exclusively and they were her self-acquired properties. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had no title or right in whatsoever manner and that the plaintiff was in possession of the same.

ii) Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were assisting the plaintiff in the cultivation of the lands and the plaintiff used to raise loans from various banks and financial institutions. Defendant No.2 have taken advantage of the errands being sent through them by the plaintiff to the PLD Bank and Nipnal Co-operative Society and managed to obtain the signatures of the plaintiff on some papers. They used it as a Varadi record. The plaintiff never voluntarily submitted any Varadi (report) for the purpose of getting their names entered in the revenue records under M.E. No.1927.

iii) Defendants No.2 and 3 have no pre-existing rights prior to M.E.No.1927 under which their names were entered in the records.

iv) The plaintiff learnt that defendant Nos.2 and 3 got their names entered in respect of Sy.No.101/1 as well as other lands, they have sold a portion of Sy.No.101/1 to defendant No.1 which is now re-numbered as 101/1B. The alleged sale deed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 dated 02.09.1986 is unauthorized and is not binding on the plaintiff.

v) It was contended that Sy.No.101/1 of which the suit land is part of it, was subject to a charge created by the plaintiff in favour of the PLD Bank and other financial institutions and therefore, it could not have been transferred in the name of defendant No.1. Such transfer by mutation entries is void and therefore, defendant No.1 is not entitled to claim any title on the strength of such void and invalid transfers.

vi) The plaintiff contended that a decree of declaration be made in her favour regarding the title to the suit land to the effect that the sale deed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not binding on the plaintiff and prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Alternatively, she also prayed that if it is found that she is not in possession, the possession of the property may also be granted to her.

4. Pursuant to the summons issued by the Trial Court, defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement.

5. Defendant No.1 contends that the contentions of the plaintiff were false and frivolous and not in accordance with law. He denied the plaint averments. Inter alia he pleaded that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and it was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the name of the plaintiff with the aid of the joint family funds and by joint labour. It was contended that there was ancestral property and out of the income of the ancestral property, the suit schedule property