The judgment establishes the principle that adverse possession can lead to the perfection of title, and the failure to establish lawful possession and title can result in the dismissal of a property dispute.

JUDGMENT

N.K.Sudhindrarao, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.56/2014 dated 10.02.2016, wherein the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property came to be dismissed. He is in appeal.

2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The substance of the plaint is:

that the plaintif f is the natural brother of defendant. The plaintiff was given in adoption to one late Channavva Parappa Jabin in the year 1966. The said Channavva Parappa Jabin was the owner in possession of the schedule property and by virtue of adoption by Channavva Parappa Jabin and succession, plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property in lawful possession and enjoyment. The defendant has no right. However, he got his name entered in the revenue records pertaining schedule property. The plaintiff never handed over the schedule property to the defendant nor entrusted him of any responsibi l ity. But it was only behind the back of the plaintiff, the defendant got the revenue entries pertaining the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further claims defendant made use of the revenue entries for wrong purposes on the basis of which even avai led loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. On 07.01.2014, plaintiff made appl ication to the Vi l lage Accountant to delete the name of the defendant from the revenue records. However, the Vil lage Accountant issued endorsement-Ex.P8, but did not the change the entry, the plaintiff was intimated to agitate the matter before the competent authority.

4. The defendant appeared before the Court and denied the claim of plaintiff over the schedule property and contended that suit is barred by l imitation; plaintiff is not in actual possession. The Court fee paid is not proper and that the defendant is in possession of the property and he has been cultivating the same since 1972. The defendant has been exercising al l rights in respect of the schedule property, he had also mortgaged the schedule property in favour of UCO Bank. Further has raised a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Vijaya Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. He also contends that plaintiff surrendered the schedule property to defendant only in order to come out of the drastic provisions of ceiling. He is not entitled for any of the reliefs. Basing on the pleadings of the parties and other materials required, the learned trial Judge framed seven issues and one additional issue. To adjudicate the points in controversy between the parties regarding title, possession, interference surrender of possession, l imitation and payment of Court fee, the learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral and documentary evidence of the fol lowing in favour of plaintiff and the defendant, i.e., PW1-Jadiyappa Parappa Jabin and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 12, Ex.P.1-copy of the Adoption Deed, Exs.P.2 and P3 RTCs, Ex.P.4-Mutation extract, Ex.P.5-copy of the mortgage deed, Ex.P.6-Mutation Register,Ex.P.7 letter from Vi l lage Accountant, Ex.P.8-reply from Vil lage Accountant, Ex.P.9- Map, Exs.P.10 and P11 and Ex.P.12-map. So also on behalf of the defendants, DW1- Gurushiddappa, DW2-Mahabaleshwar, DW3- Basappa and DW4-Suryakanth and got marked documents as per Exs.D.1 to D28, i.e., Exs.D1 and D2-RTCs, Ex.D.3-Certif ied copy of the Dentry in 1319, Exs.D.4 to 6-Khata Utars, Ex.D.7-Certif icate from the Vil lage Accountant, Ex.D.8-Notices given by Land Tribunal, Exs.D.11 to D.15-RTCs of schedule property, Ex.D.16- Statement of Accounts in Vi jaya Bank, Exs.D.17 to D.21-Mutation Entries, Ex.D.22- Panchayadast, Ex.D.23-Certified copy of the mortgage deed dated 5.8.1978, Ex.D.24-Form No.7 of Land Tribunal, Exs.D.25 and 26-RTCs, Ex.D.27-Tax paid receipt and Ex.D.28-Varadi given by Vi l lage Accountant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, would submit that there is