AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 186/2005 dated 15.12.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mandya, whereby the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 329/1998 dated 3.9.2002 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Mandya, has been confirmed The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rankings before the trial Court.
The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of their title and for cancellation of sale deeds dated 20.6.1972 and 4.9.1992. According to them, they are the owners of the property. It was their ancestral property The property originally belonged to Hotte Honna. He had three sons namely Budiya, Mayigowda and Mayanna @ Sathigegowda. Budiya and Mayanna @ Sathigegowda were not married. Mayigowda was married to Mayamma. He had five sons, namely, Madegowda. Beeregowda, Channegowda, Nagaraj and Mayiga @ Budiya. The plaintiffs are Beeregowda and Mayiga @ Budiya. It is further contended that, the sale deed executed by Mayamma, w/o. Mayigowda dated 20.6.1972 is invalid inasmuch as she had no right, title and interest whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule property. The purchaser under the aforesaid property is Honnegowda @ Gendegowda; father of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Another sale deed dated 4.9.1992 executed in favour of Chikka Channegowda by the 4th defendant is again illegal.
The defendants have entered appearance and filed written statement contending that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of Mayamma. It was her Streedhana property. Therefore, she has validly executed the sale deed dated 20.6.1972 in favour of Honnegowda @ Gendegowda.
On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court has framed the relevant issues. The parties let in their evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. As noticed above, the First Appellate Court has confirmed the said judgment and Decree.
Learned-Counsel for the appellants would contend that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is his submission that the property originally belonged to Hotte Honna, father-in-law of Mayamma. After the death of Hotte Honna, the property was succeeded by Mayigowda, the husband of Mayamma. Thereafter, the sons of Mayamma and Mayigowda have succeeded to the said property Therefore, the Courts below ought to have decreed the suit.
I have carefully perused the judgment and decrees impugned herein.
The plaintiffs have approached the Court with an assertion that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and that it is their ancestral property. They have failed to establish that it is their ancestral property. Both the plaintiffs in their cross examination have admitted that their mother Mayamma acquired the suit schedule property from her father. Their mother had executed the sale deed dated 20.6.1972 in favour of Honnegowda. It is clear that question is Streedhana property of Mayamma. She has validly executed the aforesaid sale deed dated 20.6.1972 in favour of Honnegowda. It is to be noticed that the plaintiffs have challenged the sale deed dated 20.6.1972 after 26 years from the date of its execution. The plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds within three years from the date of their attaining majority. It is not their case that they were not aware of execution of the sale deeds. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the suit is barred by time. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.