The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession may not be maintainable as a declaratory relief, but the plaintiff may be entitled to protection from illegal dispossession through a decree of permanent injunction.

1. The defendants No.4, 6 to 10 have filed this Appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2006 in O.S.No.25/2001 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot. During the pendency of this Appeal, appellant No.4 died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. For narration of facts, the parties are referred with respect to their positions in the suit for the sake of convenience.

2. The subject matter of the suit is 4 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.190/32 of Muchakandi Village (hereafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). This was a Vatan land earlier and granted to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 3. These defendants were not cultivating the land personally. The ancestors of the other defendants were cultivating the land in the capacity of inferior holders. The husband of defendant No.4 and father of defendants 5 and 6, namely Shivappa Lamani, as also defendant No.8, Manappa, executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff on 7.4.1986 agreeing to sell the suit property in his favour for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Shivappa and Manappa received the entire sale consideration from the plaintiff and delivered the possession of the suit property to him. Even before this agreement came into existence, the plaintiff was in actual possession of the suit property since 1972-73. The plaintiff applied to the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights of the suit property, but his application was rejected as he was in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement of sale. Since Shivappa and Manappa did not execute the sale deed, he filed a suit O.S.94/1995 before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bagalkot, for specific performance of the agreement. This suit was dismissed. He preferred an Appeal R.A.20/1998 to the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot. This Appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiff then preferred a Second Appeal before this Court in RSA 349/2000 and it was also dismissed. In spite of dismissal of the suit and the Appeals, all the Courts consistently held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and in fact, defendants 4 to 11 also admitted the possession of the plaintiff when they filed written statement in the suit for specific performance. The defendants 1 to 3 who were the erstwhile owners of the suit property never disturbed the plaintiff’s possession. Defendants 1 and 2 did not file written statement in O.S. 94/1995 and defendant No.2 remained ex-parte. In the suit for specific performance, it was also held that Shivappa and Manappa did not have the right to execute the sale deed as they had no title over the suit property. In this background, the plaintiff states that he has been in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years adverse to the interest of the defendants and, therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession.

3. Defendants 4 to 11 initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar for removal of the name of the plaintiff from the revenue records. He apprehended threat of dispossession by the defendants 4 to 11 because of their move to get the name of the plaintiff removed from the revenue records. He apprehended threat of dispossession by the defendants 4 to 11 because of their move to get the name of the plaintiff removed from the revenue records and therefore he brought a suit seeking declaration that he had perfected his title and ownership in respect of the suit property and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property without due process of law.

4. The defendant Nos.4 to 11 in their written statement denied all the plaint averments and contended that in view of all the three Courts holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of performance, the plaintiff was in no way concerned with the suit land nor he would derive title or interest.

5. The trial Court raised the following issues on the basis of the pleading