IMPORTANT POINT
Adverse Possession - Once title of property has been upheld and finding has been recorded by a judgment and decree in name of plaintiff in an earlier suit, onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lie on defendant.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. The father of the appellants late Srinivas Shetty filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction as an indigent person in Misc. Petition No. 24 of 1984 which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 5.5.1984. A suit in O.S. No. 22 of 1986 was filed by the appellants herein seeking partition and separate possession against their father late Srinivas Shetty and the purchaser of suit schedule property, namely, Mudegowda (the deceased respondent) who was arrayed as 2nd defendant. The said suit O.S. No. 22 of 1986 came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.9.1987 on the ground that on the date when Srinivas Shetty executed the sale deed in favour of Mudegowda, he was not married and appellants were not even born. However, an observation came to be made by the learned Trial Judge that late Mudegowda was not in possession of the suit schedule property and he had to file appropriate suit for possession of suit schedule property. It was also held that there was valid conveyance of title executed by Srinivas Shetty in favour of Mudegowda.

2. Appellants herein had filed suit O.S. No. 448/1987 against Mudegowda for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property, which suit came to be dismissed on 22.08.1988 whereunder it was held that Mudegowda possessed a valid title to the suit property and the sale deed executed by Srinivas Reddy in favour of Mudegowda had not been challenged. It was also observed that appellants herein who were the plaintiffs in the said suit had failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit schedule property, nor did they contended that they have perfected their title by adverse possession.

3. In the light of observation made in O.S. No.22 of 1986 to the effect that Mudegowda was at liberty to seek for possession of suit schedule property resulted in Mudegowda filing a suit in O.S. No. 131/1988, which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 6.11.1992 by the Principal Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class. However, the appeal in R.A. No. 88/1992 filed by the appellants herein against the judgment in O.S. No. 131/1988 came to be allowed on the ground that the Munsif Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Plaint was ordered to be presented before the proper court. Accordingly, plaint was presented before the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Mandya which was registered as O.S. No. 69 of 1994 for possession which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2003 on the grounds of : (a) suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; and (b) suit was barred by limitation.

3.1 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 17.7.2003, appeal bearing RFA No. 1141 of 2003 was filed wherein the issue of limitation apart from other grounds was canvassed by the defendants, namely, the appellants herein. It was contended that suit for possession filed beyond the period of 12 years as prescribed under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was bad in law or in other words suit was barred by limitation. The High Court held that there was no necessity for plaintiff to have filed suit for declaration of title since his title had been declared as valid in the earlier litigation between the same parties and on the issue of limitation it was held that in view of specific finding recorded in O.S. No.22 of 1986 suit filed within six months thereof was not barred by limitation. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Mr. N.K. Verma, Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (defendants) and Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Mr. K.S. Doreswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 to 7.

4.1 It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that appellate court ought not to have interfered with the well-reasoned finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge. The High Court had erron