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 wh