Adverse possession is a fact which is required to be proved before the law is applied to the facts of the case, and the scope of S. 100 CPC is restricted to examining errors of law in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. Parties to this appeal will be referred to by the rank and title they had in the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property and to declare that the defendant was in permissive possession of the hut and also possession and mesne profits both past and future. It was his case that he purchased from P. W. 1, 24 guntas of dry agricultural land situated in Lakkavalli village of tarikere Taluk; that the land purchased by him was in Survey No. 120/2; that it was bounded on the east and West by road while on north and South by adjoining Survey Numbers 1. 21 and 120/2 respectively; that his vendor had retained 11 guntas of land out of the share that had fallen to him at a partition and therefore, those 11 guntas was actually the boundary on the eastern side of the plaintiff's land. It was his further averment in the plaint that he had permitted the defendant and her husband to construct a temporary structure and reside on the land. However, the defendant was refusing to vacate his land inspite of a legal notice which was refused. Hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by stating that she built the house some 18 years prior to the filing of the suit and that she had spent Rs. 5,000-00 for construction of the same. It is not a temporary hut but a permanent hut with brick walls and mangalore tile roofing. She further asserted that the plaintiff did not purchase the suit property much less was he in possession, that she did not know who the owner of the property was; that she had been living in that hut being in possession adverse to the interest of the owner since 20 years and therefore she had title in herself having perfected it by adverse possession and in that circumstance the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for and the suit may be dismissed.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the trial court framed as many as five issues for determination. They are as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the defendant is in permissive possession of the hut situated in the suit land or whether the defendant is in adverse possession of the hut? (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the hut? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to past mesne profits, if so at what rate? (5) To what other relief if any is plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) THE plaintiff examined himself and his vendor and got marked some documents which were documents of title to the property purchased by him as well as the documents of title of his vendor in respect of the suit property and some other properties. The defendant got herself examined in support of her case and another independent witness who appears to belong to an adjoining village.

( 6 ) ON appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff while having proved his ownership to 24 guntas of land in sy. No. 120/2 of Lakkavalli, he had failed to prove, however, that he was the owner of the portion of the property where the defendant had put up the house in question. It also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not proved his allegation in the plaint that it was with his permission that the suit hut was built. It further came to the conclusion, accepting the oral evidence of the defendant and her witness that the suit hut was built more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit and therefore the defendant had perfected her title to the hut by adverse posssession. On appeal, the lower appellate Court more or less adopted the reasoning of the trial court and rejected the appeal of the plaintiff.

( 7 ) BEFORE me, learned Counsel Sri rudraradhya has canvassed only two aspects which, according to him, are legal infirmities in the judgments and decrees of the Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document