IMPORTANT POINTS
There can be no adverse possession among the members of one family for want of any animus among them over the land belonging to their family.
In an appeal under Article 136 not involving any law point finding recorded by High Court cannot be interfered.
Probing the evidence including de novo appreciation of oral evidence is not permissible under Article 136.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the final judgment and order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.498 of 2001 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein), reversed the order of the First Appellate Court and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court holding that the respondent was entitled to a decree of title to the suit land.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Even the issue arising in the appeal is a short one. It would be clear from the facts mentioned hereinbelow.

3. The appellant Nos.1(a) to (d) are the legal representatives of defendant No.1 - Shri Nanjegowda - who died during the pendency of this litigation, appellant No.2 is defendant No.2 whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

4. The dispute relates to an agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 44/14 B measuring 0.09 Guntas and Sy. No.44/14-D measuring 0.06 Guntas as detailed in schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”) situated at village Thondahalli, Bellur Hubali (Karnataka).

5. The defendants (appellants) and the plaintiff (respondent) are the members of one family. They are first cousins from their father's side. The family owned ancestral properties which included the suit land in question and other properties also.

6. In the year 1991, the plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit being O.S. No. 204 of 1991 in the Court of the Munsif at Nagamangala against the defendants (appellants). The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff (respondent) be declared as owner of the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (appellants) from interfering in his possession over the suit land.

7. According to the plaintiff, there had been an oral partition effected as far back in the year 1935 among the respective fathers of the plaintiff, the predecessor-in-title of defendant No.1 and their real uncles and pursuant thereto the suit land fell into the share of the plaintiff’s father and on his death, it was inherited by him.

8. It was alleged that all the family members including the plaintiff, defendants and their ancestors got their names recorded in the Revenue Records in relation to their respective shares. It was alleged that the said partition was fully acted upon for the last many decades with no interference by anyone among all the members of the family. It was alleged that the defendants started asserting their right, title and possession over the suit land to the detriment of the interest of the plaintiff without there being any basis whatsoever and hence the plaintiff was compelled to file a suit to seek declaration and injunction against the defendants in relation to the suit land.

9. The defendants filed their written statement. The defendants (appellants), in clear terms, admitted the relationship between the defendants (appellants) and the plaintiff (respondent) including their ancestors as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendants also admitted the existence and factum of oral partition effected among the family members as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants, however, set up one Release Deed executed by their grandfather in 1940 and claimed share in the suit land on that basis. They also relied on some mutation entries to claim share in the suit land and also set up a plea of adverse possession over the suit land and claimed that they have become the owner of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession on account of their long, peaceful and continuous possession.

10. The Trial Court framed the issues. Parties adduced their evidence. The Trial Court, by judgment/decree dated 17.03.1997, decreed the plaintiff’s suit. The Trial Court held that, the plaintiff (respondent) is the owner of the suit land, he is in possessi