( 1 ) THESE second appeals are filed by the defendants-State Government and others questioning the legality and correctness of the Judgments and Decrees passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Bangalore rural district, in RA Nos. 39/97, 1/97, 2/97 and 3/97 affirming the Judgments and Decrees passed in OS Nos. 237/96, 481/93, 399/93, 479/93 respectively by the Prl. Munsiff, Bangalore and sought for setting aside the impugned Judgments and Decrees passed in the Regular Appeals and Original Suits respectively.

( 2 ) THE cause of action for institution of the original suits, except the original suit No. 237/96, the Judgment and Decree of which challenged is in RSA No. 960/97, is one and the same. The reliefs sought for in these appeals is one and the same. Except in the Original Suit No. 237/96 filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, the other original suits are for bare permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the respective suit schedule properties.

( 3 ) THESE appeals were heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. As the Appellants/defendants are one and the same though the plaintiffs are different in all these appeals and since common substantial questions of law were framed by this Court at the time of admission and hearing of these Appeals, all the appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as per their rank in the Original Suits.

( 5 ) THE brief facts are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering the rival contentions of the parties and to answer the same with reference to the substantial and additional questions of law framed by this Court which are extracted in this common judgment. In RSA No. 960/97 arising out of OS No. 237/96, the plaintiff has filed the original suit in respect of 2 acres and 20 guntas of dry land situated in Bidarahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk contending that he is the absolute owner and Khatedar of the land in question and his name has been entered in the RTC record as per documents produced as Exhibits P10, P11 and P14. It is stated that he has been declared as the absolute owner in possession by the trial Court in OS 551/94 and pursuant to the said decree he applied to the Tahsildar and Dy. Tahsildar of Bangalore south Taluk, requesting them to regularise the revenue entries in his name in respect of the suit schedule property but defendant No. 4 in the said original suit has not passed any order within four months from the date of submission of the said Application. Therefore, it is stated since the defendants 3 and 4 have violated and disobeyed the orders of this Court in WP 32653/95 by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed contempt of court case in CCC 101/96 before this Court against some of the defendants and in the meanwhile, the plaintiff received a letter dated 27-1-1996 on 2-2-1996 rejecting his application. Thereafter, he submitted one more application on 26-2-1996 copy of which was given to the Deputy Commissioner. The second defendant has issued an endorsement on the application filed by the plaintiff for issuing the order passed on his application stating that since it is the office correspondence, the certified copy of the order shall not be issued to him as demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years uniterruptedly thereby he acquired title by adverse possession of the suit schedule property. It is further alleged that the defendants have not taken action under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 and Karnataka Land Revenue Rules of 1966 (in short called as Act and Rules) against the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule land for eviction and that he belongs to Adi Karnataka by