This appeal by special leave is filed by the original defendant against the judgment and order dated 18th December, 1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No. 802 of 1995.

Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

K.M. Shaffi, respondent herein instituted a suit bearing O.S. No. 451/84 in the Court of principal munsiff, Bellary (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the trial Court') for a declaration that a portion of T.S. No. 272-A and T.S. No. 273-B admeasuring 80' x 120' (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the suit plot') was his and his brother's absolute property. In the said suit, the plaintiff also' sought an injunction restraining the appellant herein (defendant) from entering the suit plot.

T.G. Sreenivasa Pillai, T.G. Vivekananda Pillai and T.G. Sathyanarayana Pillai sons of Gurunatham Pillai were the owners of suit land bearing S. No. 635R (which was revised to T.S. 272) admeasuring 90 cents and S. No. 635T (revised to T.S. 273) admeasuring 5 acres 38 cents. The sons of Gurunatham Pillai sold the above lands to Khan Saheb Abdul Hye vide sale deed dated 14.11.1944 (exhibit P-1) for Rs. 300/-. Khan Saheb Abdul died in 194 7 leaving behind him his two sons, Basheer and Muneer who in turn gifted the said lands to one Sattar (father of the plaintiff) and Rahiman (plaintiff' s uncle) under gift deed dated 20.6.1966 (exhibit P2). Sattar and Rahiman got the above lands sub-divided. In the partition suit No. 381/72 on the file of principal munsiff, Bellary the plaintiff herein and his brother got the sub-divided plot Nos. T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B which included the suit plot admeasuring 80' x 120'. The present title suit was filed when the appellant herein tried to enter upon the suit plot.

In the written statement, the appellant herein pleaded that the suit plot admeasuring 80' x 120' was a separate plot and that it was not a part of T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B as alleged. It was pleaded that the suit plot was separately assessed by the municipality. It was pleaded that on 19.7.1967, the husband of the appellant had bought the suit plot from one Rajarathnam. That the husband of the appellant had later on executed a deed of settlement in favour of the appellant on 12.1.1973 and that the appellant had been in possession and in enjoyment of the suit plot. That Rajarathnam had purchased the suit plot in 1965 from the wife of Gurunatham Pillai. In the written statement, the appellant herein denied that the sons of Gurunatham had sold the lands to Khan Saheb Abdul as alleged. It was contended that sons had no right to sell the said lands. That the wife of Gurunatham was the owner. That she had not executed any conveyance in favour of Khan Saheb. In the written statement, appellant denied the gift by sons of Khan Saheb to Sattar and Rahiman.

Two main points arose for determination before the trial Court. Firstly, whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit plot. Secondly, whether the suit plot formed part of T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B. According to PW 1 the title came to him through the sons of Gurunatham vide exhibit PI which was a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1944 and later on under exhibit P2 which is gift deed executed by sons of Khan Saheb in favour of Sattar and Rahiman.

On the other hand, the appellant (defendant claimed title only to the suit plot admeasuring 80' x 120'. She claimed it to be a separate property. She traced her title to the wife of Gurunatham. She contended that the sons of Gurunatham had no right to sell.

The trial Court found that when on 14.11.1944 the sons of Gurunatham Pillai had sold the above lands vide sale deed exhibit PI to Khan Saheb Abdul for Rs. 300/-, the wife of Gurunatham had no right to sell the suit plot in 1965 through her constituted attorney to Rajarathnam from whom the husband of the appellant claims to have purchased the suit plot. The trial Court further observed that before it