1. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit (O.S.No.4922/2001) by the Court of the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore by its judgment and decree, dated 13.11.2007.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant – plaintiff claimed that his father had occupied the suit schedule property unauthorisedly prior to 1963. The revenue authorities even levied the T.T. fine for the unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the land by the appellant’s father. On the demise of his father, the appellant continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property. He filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and allegations. It was stated therein that the land bearing Sy.No.99 measures 10 acres 30 guntas and that it is a gomal land. The T.T. fine is levied on those who cultivate the Government lands unauthorisedly. It does not give any right to them to claim the title or possession. The land at Sy.No.99 is used up for the formation of the sites which are distributed to the siteless persons. The RTC for the year 20042005 shows that the schedule properties are in the possession of the Government.

3. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court formulated the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land from the time of his father adverse to the interest of defendants as pleaded in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has perfected his title to the suit land by way of adverse possession as pleaded in the plaint?

3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit land they have already formed the sites and allotted them to the poor persons free of cost and they have put up the houses in the said sites as contended in the written statement?

4. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the declaration of his title to the suit land as sought for in the suit?

6. What order or decree?”

4. On behalf of the appellant, he himself and two others were examined as PWs. 1 to 3 marking the documents at Exs. P1 to P14. The official of the second defendant was examined as DW1 marking 6 documents in the Ex. D series. On considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence placed on its record and applying the caselaw, the Trial Court answered the contentious issues against the appellant and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

5. Sri C. Shankar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have not produced any document to show as to how many sites are formed out of which lands, how many sites are allotted, to whom they are allotted, etc.

6. Sri Reddy submits that the revenue records from 19631973 show the possession of the appellant’s father till 1970. The Tahsildar passed the eviction order which was however set aside by the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the appellant’s father. He submits that only that part of the Tahsildar’s order, which imposed the T.T.fine, was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter no fresh eviction proceedings are initiated. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner’s said order is at Ex.P10.

7. He denies the official conversion that the land at Sy.No.99 measures 10 acres 30 guntas. According to him, all the lands standing at Sy. Nos. 98, 99, 100 and 101 together measure 10 acres 30 guntas. He submits that the land at Sy.No.99 measured 2 acres 30 guntas. Later it is shown in the revenue records that it measures 3 acres.

8. He submits that this Court by its interim order, dated 07.01.2008 restrained the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from disturbing the possession of the schedule property o