Clear and distinct pleading and specific evidence required to establish adverse possession. Continuous, uninterrupted, hostile possession for 12 years needed to acquire title by adverse possession. Unauthorized occupation disentitles claim of adverse possession. Public land cannot be diverted for private interests. Courts must act with seriousness and circumspection in cases of adverse possession of public property.

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit (O.S.No.422/2006) by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal by its judgment and decree, dated 14.8.2009.

2. The plaintiff’s version in brief is that the plaintiff’s father Sri Chikkannaiappa was in peaceful possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule lands from 1957-58. His father has been in possession, occupation and enjoyment of schedule ‘C’ lands from 1950. On the death of his father in 1978-79, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the three schedule lands. He filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (respondents herein) from interfering in his possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands.

3. For the reasons best known to themselves, the respondents did not take part in the suit proceedings. They were placed exparte. Based on the pleadings in the plaint, the Trial Court formulated the following points for its consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has perfected his title and ownership in respect of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

3. What Order or decree?

4. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1. He also adduced the evidence of an independent witness, H.A.Mohammed Peer as PW2. The documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P43 are marked for the plaintiff. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on its record, the Trial Court answered the points against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

6. Sri M.Ram Bhat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.S.Patil for the appellant submits that the mahazar at Ex.P19 in respect of ‘C’ schedule land clearly shows that the appellant’s father was in its possession. He submits that the RTCs at Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 also contain the particulars of the crops grown on Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ lands and also the name of the appellant’s father. The supporting record of rights in respect of schedule ‘C’ land are at Ex.P21 to Ex.P25. The revenue documents unmistakably show the possession of the appellant’s father and of the appellant for over 30 years. For buttressing the submission that the length of occupation of the lands held by the appellant’s father has to remain accrued to the length of occupation of the appellant, he read out the following portion from M.Krishnaswami’s Law of Adverse Possession published by Law Book Company (9th Edition – 1979). It reads as follows:

“Where a father or other relation is in possession of the disputed property adversely to the plaintiff and on his death, the defendants, as the heirs of the deceased, continue in possession, in these circumstances, the defendants are entitled to tack their possession with that of their father, or other relation, and thereafter they acquire a right by adverse possession….”

7. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that as the respondent – defendants have not resisted the claim of the appellant – plaintiff, the suit ought to have been decreed by the Trial Court.

8. Smt.B.P.Radha, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the appellant is baselessly claiming that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession on the precious Government lands totally measuring 5 acres. She submits that the appellant’s representation at Ex.P41 shows that his/his father’s possession was not peaceful. She submits that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that he and/or his father have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the schedule lands. She submits that for being in unauthorised occupation, the respondents imposed the fine on the appellant by passing (T.T.Fine order) in respect of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ lands. She submits that the