JUDGMENT :

Even though this matter is posted for admission today, with consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff No.1, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad in R.A.No.121/2011 confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2007 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Humnabad in O.S.No.15/2005.

3. Rank of the parties in the trial Court is taken as it is in this appeal also.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. Plaintiffs’ grandfather viz., Siddayya had mortgaged the suit property under unregistered document in favour of defendant’s father viz., Veerbhadrappa in the year 1946. Plaintiffs’ grandfather viz., Siddayya had filed a suit in O.S.No.97/1958 for redumption of mortgage deed and recovery of possession. The suit filed by the Sidayya was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, he has filed appeal in R.A.No.30/1964. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed Regular Second Appeal before this Court in RSA.No.571/1967. This Court by on 26.05.1972 has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant.

5. It is further case of the plaintiffs that even after they succeeded in the earlier suit, in revenue records the name of defendant has been continued. Hence, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.15/2005 for declaration and rectification of revenue entries.

6. After service of summons, the defendant has filed written statement and taken defense that, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. He further contended that, he has purchased the suit property. Further case of the defendant is that, he has obtained decree, but he has not filed any petition for execution of the decree for restoring the possession. The defendant had also filed the original suit in O.S.No.135/2004 for declaration and injunction on the basis of adverse possession. The trial Court has clubbed the matters together and passed common judgment.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court has framed the following issues in O.S.No.15/2005.

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, they came in actual possession and enjoyment over the suit land in the month of June 1972 i.e., after the judgment passed in RSA.No.571 of 1967 (Deleted vide order dated 23.06.2007)

2. Whether defendant proves that, he perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit property?

3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought?

4. What decree or order?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?

3. Whether the issue of defendants ownership over the suit property is barred under Section 11 of CPC?

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5. Whether the defendant proves that, the defendant is absolute owner of the suit property?

8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.15/2005 filed by the plaintiffs. Decreed the suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.135/2004 holding that, defendant has proved his plea of adverse possession over the suit property and declared that, defendant is the owner of the suit property.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed regular appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Humnabad in R.A.No.121/2011. The First Appellate Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs prove that, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and this Court interference is necessary?

2. To what order or relief?

10. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by confirmi