JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.108/2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga (hereinafter referred as 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment and order of the dated 17.12.2018 passed in R.A.No.57/2012 by the II Additional District Judge, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred as 'First Appellate Court').

2. The above suit in O.S.No.108/2023 was filed by one Eshwarappa-plaintiff No.1 and G.E.Chandrappa-plaintiff No.2 against one Smt.Vishalakshamma, defendant No.1 and her daughter Pankaja, defendant No.2 and her son Vijaykumar, defendant No.3 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession.

3. The subject matter of the suit is 3 acres and 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.106 of Gondichatnahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk (Suit schedule property).

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that;

(a). Original propositus one Karibasappa had three sons and five daughters namely Shekharappa, Eshwarappa (the plaintiff No.1 herein), Mahadevappa, Basamma, Gowramma, Shivalingamma, Madamma and Karibasamma. One of the daughters namely Madamma was married to one Gurupadappara Mahadevappa and their daughters Nagamma and Savithramma were given in marriage to brother of plaintiff No.1 Mahadevappa and Ujjinappa of Gondichatnahalli respectively. That the first plaintiff's brother Mahadevappa and his wife Nagamma had a son by name Renukappa. The defendant No.1 is the wife and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of said Renukappa.

(b). Said Gurupadappara Mahadevappa was not owning movable or immovable properties. He was also not having any source of livelihood, as such he was living in the family of Karibasappa, the father of the plaintiff No.1 and said Karibasappa owned vast extent of land in several survey numbers situated in Gondichatnahalli Village. The family of Karibasappa was purchasing the properties in the names of members of the family including Gurupadappara Mahadevappa, As such suit schedule property was purchased by Karibasappa in the name of Gurupadappara Mahadevappa.

(c). It is further case of the plaintiffs that though the land was purchased in the name of Gurupadappara Mahadevappa, the same belongs to family members of the plaintiffs. That without the knowledge of the members of the family, said Gurupadappara Mahadevappa had surreptitiously bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of his grand son Renukappa by executing a registered Will dated 18.04.1973. However, upon the advice of the elders of the village, father of Renukappa namely Mahadevappa agreed to effect the partition of the suit schedule property since the plaintiff No.1 was in possession and cultivation of the said property. Accordingly, a palupatti was prepared on 10.03.1988 as per Ex.P7 in terms of which Renukappa had relinquished his entitlement in favour of plaintiff No.1.

(d). It is the further case of the plaintiffs that, despite execution of the palupatti dated 10.03.1988. Renukappa had applied for change of khata of the suit property in his name on the strength of the Will and the plaintiff No.1 had also applied for change of khata in his name on the strength of palupatti. That the Revenue Authorities accepting the mutation in favour of plaintiff No.1 in M.R.No:91/1988-89 on 01.08.1989 on the basis of no objection given by Renukappa and his father Mahadevappa and also effected the mutation of Renukappa vide M.R.No:88/88-89 on the same day. Mahadevappa predeceased Renukappa who died on 11.11.1993. Since they were aware of the suit property having been allotted in favour of plaintiff No.1 and also change of khata in his name, revenue entries were not challenged at any time during their lifetime.

(e). It is further contended that, defendant No.1 was aware of these affairs