THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

JUDGMENT

Basavalingamma and her son Amaregouda, who are

the plaintiffs, are in second appeal.

They instituted the suit for declaration that they were

the absolute owners of the land bearing Sy.No.267

measuring 06 acres 02 guntas situated in Deodurga. They

also sought a decree to direct Vanajakshi – defendant

No.1, who had purchased the property from Basanagouda

i.e., defendant No.2, to hand over vacant possession of

the said land.

3.

They contended that Thippanna—the husband of

Basavalingamma and father of Amaregouda, had expired

on 12.02.1971, leaving behind them as his only legal heirs

and as a consequence, they had inherited the property

and had become the absolute owners. They stated that

Thippanna had informed Basavalingamma that he had

orally mortgaged the suit land in the year 1969 in favour

of Basanagouda—defendant No.2 and at the time of

mortgage, he was a minor.

- 4 -

4.

It was stated that Bheemawwa—his mother had

entered into the mortgage as his guardian and the

mortgage money was a sum of `3,000/- with a condition

that Thippanna was entitled to be in possession of the

property for a period of thirty-five years. It was stated

that, as per the terms of mortgage, Thippanna was

required to hand-over the possession after thirty-five

years and as a consequence, when his son Basanagouda—

defendant No.2 was approached in the month of

November-2004 to redeliver the possession, Basanagouda

stated that the suit property had been sold to his mother

when he was still a minor in favour of Vanajakshi—

defendant No.1, under a registered sale deed dated

06.07.1971. It was contended that the said sale deed was

of no consequence as it had been executed by people who

had no right over the property and the same was void,

and Vanajakshi was essentially a trespasser in possession

of the property and they were, therefore, entitled to

recover the possession.

- 5 -

5.

Vanajakshi entered appearance and contested the

suit by filing a written statement. She contended that

Thippanna did not die on 12.02.1971 but was actually

alive till December, 1971. She also denied the assertion

that there had been an oral mortgage by Thippanna in

favour of Basavalingamma—defendant No.2. She denied

the assertion that Thippanna was the owner of the land.

She stated that Basanagouda—defendant No.2 and his

mother—Bheemawwa were the owners of the property and

they had sold it by executing a sale deed on 06.07.1971 in

her favour and she had, thereby, become the owner of the

property.

6.

She also contended that she had purchased the

property after verifying the records and for a valid

consideration and she was also in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the same as owner and she, therefore,

stated that she is the bona fide owner.

7.

Vanajakshi—defendant No.1 also contended in her

written statement that since she was in peaceful

- 6 -

possession

and

enjoyment

of

the

suit

property

continuously and adversely as the owner and possessor to

the knowledge of Thippanna from 1991, without any kind

of interference from anybody, she had perfected her title

by way of adverse possession and this was evidenced by

the fact that the revenue records stood in her name from

the year 1971.

8.

Basanagouda—defendant No.2 also filed a written

statement. He, however, supported the plaintiffs and

requested the Court to decree the suit in favour of

Basavalingamma and her son—Amaregouda.

9.

The Trial Court, taking note of the admission of

Vanajakshi’s husband, who was examined as DW.1 on her

behalf to the effect that Thippanna was the owner of the

property, proceeded to decree the suit. The Trial Court had

also directed Vanajakshi to hand over the possession.

10.

The Trial Court also took the view that the sale by

Bheemawwa on behalf of her minor son in favour of

- 7 -

Vanajakshi could not be sustained since permission of the

Court had not been obtained prior to the sale.

11.

Being aggrieved, Vanajakshi preferred