ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.12.2005 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No.566 of 2001.

2. The RSA was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court vide impugned judgment has allowed the Regular Second Appeal setting aside the decree of the trial Court. High Court further held that defendant's right, if any, is on the eastern side of the portion, only 3 guntas. Defendant, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, has come up in this appeal.

3. The parties shall be referred to as described in the plaint. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No.610/89 praying for decree of declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. There were certain other prayers in the plaint. Schedule property described in the plaint was Survey No.315, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas. The plaintiff's case, in the plaint, was that plaintiff's husband Hanuma @ Hanumegowda was in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing 1 acre 3 guntas in Survey No.315 till his death. It was further pleaded that formerly Survey No.315 measured 3 acre 8 guntas out of which 5 guntas belongs to one Nathegowda the grand-father of the defendant and the remaining land belongs to the plaintiff's husband. It was further pleaded that out of 3 acre 8 guntas an extent of 2 acre 2 guntas was taken over for the purpose of excavating Iruvin Nala by the then Mysore Government by notification dated 22.04.1933. It was further pleaded that defendant or his ancestors in no way related to the plaintiff's family. It was pleaded that revenue records like Pasalu Pahani from the year 1954 to 1969 shows that the plaintiff's husband was the owner in possession of 1 acre 3 guntas and defendant's ancestors owned only 3 guntas until 1969. It was further pleaded that revenue records were corrected in 1968 in mechanical manner without any verification. When it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, she submitted an application to the Tahsildar to correct the wrong entry. Ultimately, the matter was decided by the Commissioner with an observation that entries made in record of rights by the official is wrong and the same has been written without applying the mind. It was observed that it is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. The petition was dismissed ordering to keep the khata in joint until the matter is adjudicated by the Civil Court. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant attempted to cut and remove the standing paddy and sugarcane crop grown by the plaintiff, hence cause of action arose for filing of the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations that defendant has only 3 guntas land in the Survey No.315. It was pleaded that the defendant's ancestors were joint owner in possession and enjoyment of the entire land comprised in serial no.315. 2 acres and 2 guntas was acquired for the purpose of Irvin Cannal. It was further pleaded that about 32 to 33 years back, the father of the defendant and the husband of the plaintiff orally divided the said extent of land i.e. 1 acre 6 guntas in the suit schedule property. In the said oral division the eastern half portion fell into the share of the defendant's father and the remaining western half fell into the share of the plaintiff's husband. An additional written statement was also filed claiming right on the basis of the continuous adverse possession. It was pleaded that by law he has matured right of adverse possession. The trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved that she is owner of the suit property only in respect of wester half portion and with regard to possession also the same finding was returned. Other issues were decided against the plaintiff. The trial Court noticed the documentary evidence, produced by parties. The notification, which was issued by the Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. notification dated 13.06.1933,