1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and for permanent injunction.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. 3

3. The subject matter of the suit is land situated in Sy. No. 9 at Bachenahalli, Mandikal Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk, measuring 4 acres 14 guntas bounded on the East by Muddappagari Venkatarayappa's land; West by Lands of B.N.Narayanaswamy and Venkatappa; North by Narasimhaiah's land and South by Halla and Narayanappa's land, which is hereinafter for short referred to as 'the suit land'.

4. The 2nd plaintiff is the paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff. Suit property absolutely belongs to them. Their case is they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, raising crops thereon and have been paying the land revenue due on the land. The land was granted to Venkatarayappa, the grandfather of the 1st plaintiff under Darkast in ADR 6/50-51 under saguvali chit dated 28.3.1951. From that day the suit property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the family of the plaintiffs. The katha stands in their name. Mutation entries are also made in their names.

5. The defendant has absolutely no right or interest in the schedule land. He has been attempting to encroach upon the suit land. Defendant is obstructing the plaintiffs in their agricultural operations in the schedule land. If those illegal acts are not prevented, the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

6. After service of summons, the defendant entered appearance. He filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. He has denied all the allegations in the plaint. In para 5 of the written statement he has set out his case. It is his specific case that, the suit property measures in total an extent of 4 acres 14 guntas including kharab land of 36 guntas. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment to an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas. Whereas the kharab portion in the suit property is situated towards west of the property. This kharab possession of 36 guntas is in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant. The same is merged in survey number 10 which belong to the defendant. This Sy.No.10, stands in the name of Akkayyamma, the mother of the defendant. There is no separate identity in respect of 36 guntas, out of plaint schedule survey number and the same is part and parcel of Sy.No.10. The entire Sy.No.10, along with kharab portion of 36 guntas, out of plaint schedule Sy.No.9, is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant for a period of more than 30 years. The plaintiffs are very well aware of the fact that the kharab portion of Sy.No.9 is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant and his mother. Even RTC of Sy.No.9 for several years reveal the name of Agasara Ramaiah, the father of the defendant and the husband of Akkayyamma. The defendant has perfected his title over the kharab portion of 36 guntas out of Sy. No.9 by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs have filed the suit by furnishing false boundaries suppressing the real facts of the case. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is the owner of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of his suit?

3. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference?

4. Whether the defendant proves that he has perfected his title by adverse possession over the portion of suit property as contended?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed?

6. What decree or order?

8. Plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim examine