The judgment establishes the principle that adverse possession requires both physical possession and intention to exclude the true owner, and a clear case must be made to establish adverse possession. The judgment also highlights the impact of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the plea of benami.

( 1 ) ONE Nanjundaiah filed a suit in O. S. No. 58 / 78 before the Civil Judge, Tiptur, for declaration of title over the suit properties and permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Tiptur, on 30-1-1982. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 challenged this judgment before the learned District Judge, Tumkur, in R. A. No. 4/82 and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 5-11-1962. Aggrieved by this judgment, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have come up with this Second Appeal.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal, Nanjundaiah, the plaintiff died and his wife and Krishna Gowda were brought on record as legal representatives of Nanjundaiah. The case of the plaintiff was, that the suit schedule property belonged to one Dasaru Chikkanna, that he purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 9-11-1955 in the name of the first defendant his brother-in-law, and that he has been in possession of the same by paying land revenue and improving the land. His alternative case was that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, having been in enjoyment of the same since 9-11-1955. He contended that defendant No. 1 was not the real owner and he, with the assistance of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land. The first defendant has remained ex parte and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contend that the first defendant is the real owner and that the plaintiff has not perfected his title by adverse possession. They also contend that 2 acres 38 guntas of the suit land was purchased by defendant No. 2 and the remaining one acre of the suit land was purchased by defendant No. 3 from defendant No. 1 under two registered sale deeds dated 14-9-1977. The trial Court framed the following five issues :"1. Whether the plaintiff prove that he purchased the suit land under the sale deed dated 9-1 1-1955 benami in the name of the 1st defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff, proves that he has perfected his title to the suit land by adverse possession? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner of the suit land on the date of suit? 4. Whether defendants 2 and 3 prove that they are bona fide purchasers for value for the suit land? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?

( 3 ) AFTER trial, the learned Civil Judge answered issue No. 1 in the negative, issues Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and held on issue No. 4 that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value. Consequently, the suit was decreed.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge in appeal has concurred with the findings of the trial Court. The plea of benami put forth by the plaintiff has been negatived by both the Courts on facts and it is not disputed before me that this plea is no longer available for the plaintiff in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

( 5 ) FOLLOWING points have been formulated at the time of admission of this appeal : 1. Is the Appellate Court justified in drawing a presumption in favour of the plaintiff under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Is the Appellate Court justified in holding that the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession when no documents were produced to establish continuous possession of the plaintiff for the statutory period? 3. Is the Appellate Court justified in holding that the pleas of the plaintiff regarding title - one on the basis of benami transaction and another on the plea of adverse possession - are not mutually destructive?

( 6 ) IT is true that no document prior to the year 1967-68 was produced by the plaintiff to prove his case of possession. But the District Judge relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad Thakur v. Ram Ekbal Rai (dead) by his Legal Repr