The plaintiff failed to establish title or continuous possession over ancestral properties, leading to the reversal of the appellate court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.Manjula, J.

The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants against whom the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff / to declare the impugned patta issued to the first defendant as null and void and consequential permanent injunction. The trial Court has dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred the first appeal. The first appellate Court has allowed the first appeal and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved over that, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this second appeal.

2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint is under:-

The plaintiff is the second defendant's daughter through his first wife. The first defendant is the second wife of the second defendant. The plaintiff is an illiterate person. The suit properties and other properties are the ancestral properties of the second defendant. Before 16 years from the date of the suit, the plaintiff got married and after her marriage, the second defendant allotted the suit properties to the plaintiff and from then onwards, the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the suit properties and cultivating the same to the knowledge of the defendants. The patta for the suit properties has also been effected in the name of the plaintiff on 20.02.2000. In the patta, there is a mention of 0.05.0 hectare. The defendants do not have any right in the suit properties. The second defendant has got other properties for his enjoyment. By taking advantage of the patta, which do not have the right over the extent of the properties in enjoyment of the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 claim false title over the suit properties. On 30.07.2000, they tried to encroach into the suit properties and disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the same and that was prevented by the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 have declared that they would come and take the possession of the suit properties. The actions of the defendants 1 and 2 are illegal and hence the plaintiff has filed the suit to declare her title over the suit properties, to declare that the patta is defective and it is null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit properties.

3. The first and second defendants have filed their written statement and it is given in brief as under:-

The whole of the suit properties was not given to the plaintiff. A portion of the suit properties alone was given to the plaintiff by the second defendant. It was not cultivated by the plaintiff at any point of time. Only the defendants 1 and 2 are cultivating the same by paying Kist. In fact, the plaintiff has agreed to sell a portion of the properties given to her to the first defendant and has entered into a sale agreement with her father. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence, the suit should be dismissed.

4. The written statement of the third and fourth defendants in brief as under:-

It is false to state that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff. The suit properties belonged to the second defendant. It is wrong to claim that the patta is null and void, as it has been jointly given in the names of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Hence, the plaintiff cannot seek any relief against the patta.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed in the trial Court:-

“(1) Whether the plaint is sustainable?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?”

Taking into consideration of the plaint and the written-statement, the issues are re-framed in the trial Court as follows:-

“(1) Whether the plaint is the owner of the suit property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint?

(4) What are the other reliefs?”

6. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked, on the side of the first defendant, she was