These appeals are by the defendant in the suit. The same are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. It was the case of the plaintiff that house bearing no.12, M.N. Krishna Rao Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, originally belonged to one Settru Sangappa. The plaintiff and the defendant were his daughters. It transpires that Sangappa had gifted that portion of the property demarcated in plaint Schedule ‘A’ to the plaintiff and the portion demarcated in plaint Schedule ‘B’ in favour of the defendant.

The plaintiff is said to be a resident of Mysore city. It was alleged that taking advantage of her absence, the defendant had attempted to encroach on a portion of Schedule ‘A’ property by putting up a wall and usurp a portion of the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff had thus filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, as the defendant is said to have subsequently completed the act of putting up the wall, the plaintiff had also sought for a mandatory injunction seeking the demolition and removal of the obstruction. It was claimed that by the act of the defendant the plaintiff was denied access to and the use of two lavatories and a jackfruit tree that were in the area illegally cordoned off by the erection of a wall, which was said to be five feet in height and a few feet in length.

The defendant had entered appearance and filed her written statement to contend that the claim of the plaintiff over the entire extent of Schedule ‘A’ property was denied. It was contended that the description was inaccurate and misleading. It was denied that there was any attempt at encroachment over the property of the plaintiff. The offending wall complained of was in existence for over 10 years prior to the suit and that it was built by the plaintiff herself to demarcate the boundary of the respective properties of the plaintiff and the defendant. It was contended that the disputed area consisted of a garage, out house and a lavatory, which was in the possession of the defendant since inception on the same having been gifted by their father. And that even otherwise, she having possessed the said disputed area openly, continuously and to the knowledge of the plaintiff adversely to her interest, had perfected her title to the same by adverse possession. The defendant had also filed a counter – claim seeking to lay claim over the disputed portion of the suit properties. The plaintiff had resisted the same by filing a written statement to the said counter claim.

On the basis of the above pleadings the court below had framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the alleged interference is proved?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has after the temporary injunction order is granted has put up construction of the DE wall to a height of 5 feet?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for Permanent Injunction sought for?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for Mandatory Injunction sought for?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the portion of premises marked the letters DEFGHKLILMD?

2. Whether the defendant proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property appended to the counter claim?

3. The plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

4. Whether the defendant proves his plea for adverse possession?”

The court below had answered all the issues in the affirmative and additional issue no.3 in the affirmative and additional issues no.1, 2, and 4 in the negative. It is that which is under challenge in these appeals.

3. In appeal no. RFA 1268/2009, the defendant has challenged the decree in favour of the plaintiff. In RFA 1269/2009, the defendant has challenged the dismissal of her counter claim.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that a court commissioner had been appointed to inspect t