This appeal is preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs

challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2012 passed

by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arkalgud in R.A.No.430/2008,

which confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007

passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Arkalgud in

O.S.No.244/2003.

2. Parties shall be referred to as per their status before

the trial Court.

3. The original plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants

for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also to

declare that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1

by defendant Nos.2 and 4 does not bind the title and interest of

the plaintiff and for the relief of permanent injunction and other

consequential reliefs.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that she is the absolute owner

of the suit schedule property, which originally belonged to the

husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos.3 and

4 by name, one Sri Abdul Khalak Sab. It is the further case of

- 5 -

the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 and 4 have sold the

properties in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to two properties

namely, survey Nos.77/10 and 77/12 on 04.03.1988 by way of

a registered sale deed. Pursuant to which, the plaintiff was put

into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said two

properties.

4.1 It is the further case of the plaintiff that while

executing the sale deed, defendant No.2 and her husband,

Abdul Khalak Sab have committed a mistake therein by

mentioning the survey number as 77/2 instead of Sy.No.77/12.

The plaintiff being an uneducated lady, did not notice the same

and was not aware of it. But, she continued to be in possession

of the suit schedule property, which according to her, survey

No.77/12 by virtue of registered sale deed-Ex.P2. It is the

further case of the plaintiff that taking advantage of the same,

defendant No.2 colluding with the Revenue officials (Tahsildar)

got changed the khatha in her name, aggrieved by which, the

plaintiff has filed an appeal in R.A.No.23/2000-01 before the

Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshapura against defendant No.2

and the Tahsildar, which came to be dismissed. This being the

state of affairs, defendant No.1 started interfering with the

- 6 -

plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit before the

trial Court claiming that she having purchased the suit schedule

property, defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess the plaintiff

from the suit schedule property at the instigation of defendant

Nos.2 to 4.

4.2 Defendant Nos.1 and 4 appeared before the trial

Court. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the

averments made by the plaintiff and contended that there is

absolutely no cause of action and he is in lawful possession of

the suit schedule property having purchased the same from

defendant No.2 and her sons under a registered sale deed

dated 09.11.2002 for a valuable sale consideration and he

further took up the plea that the plaintiff does not have any

right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, which

absolutely belongs to him pursuant to the sale deed dated

09.11.2002.

4.3 Defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(c) and 3 were placed ex

parte.

4.4 Defendant No.4 has also filed the written statement

denying the averments made in the plaint and did not agree to

- 7 -

the contention put-forth by the plaintiff or plea taken by the

plaintiff in the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.5 Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the

learned

trial

Judge

framed

the

following

issues

for

consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful

possession over the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by

the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed

executed in favour of the