JUDGMENT :

K.S. MUDAGAL, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2011 in R.A. No. 63/2011 and L.A.C. A.No. 6/2011 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mysuru. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru ino. S.No. 1771/2007 and L.A.C. No. 232/2003. By the said judgment and order, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and rejected the claim of the objector in the land acquisition case.

2. Appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1771/2007 and objector in L.A.C. No. 232/2003. For the purpose of convenience, appellant will be henceforth referred to as plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in R.S.A. No. 2587/2011 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 in M.S.A. No. 278/2011 are referred to as defendants.

3. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The suit schedule properties, namely survey No. 62/1 measuring 5 acres 24 guntas and Survey No. 62/2 measuring 0.39 guntas situated in Metagalli Village, Mysuru Taluk belonged to one Sri Venkatagiri Thimmegowda. After the death of Sri Venkatagiri Thimmegowda, his three sons also died. Therefore his wife Thimmamma adopted the plaintiff. Originally Survey No. 62 in all measured 8 acres. Out of that Thimmamma sold 1 acre 17 guntas to one Thimmegowda S/o. Chaluve Gowda on 17.02.1955. The property sold was renumbered as Survey No. 62/3. Remaining portion of the property was sub-divided and assigned Survey Nos.62/1 and 62/2 as described in the plaint schedule. Defendants fraudulently got their names entered to the suit schedule properties. When he questioned that before the Revenue Authorities, they held that the matter requires adjudication by the Civil Court, therefore directed him to approach the Civil Court. Thus, he sought declaration of his title to the suit properties and injunction.

4. The defence of the defendants was as follows:

The title of Venkatagirigowda or Thimmamma to the suit schedule properties, the adoption set up by the plaintiff or his possession of any of the suit schedule properties were denied. The only property owned by Thimmamma was 1 acre 17 guntas in Survey No. 62/3 which she sold to one Thimmegowda son of Chaluve Gowda and she had no interest in the suit schedule properties. Survey No. 62, in all measured 8 acres. Out of that, 6 acres 23 guntas belonged to one Marigante Gowda. After his death under the registered partition deed dated 29.04.1953 his sons Doddamadaiah and Chikkamadaiah got 3 acres 11 Vi guntas each to their share. Said Doddamadaiah and Chikkamadaiah sold the entire land in favour of husband of defendant No. 1 and put him in possession. He in turn under the registered partition deed dated 19.12.1971 allotted that to his sons namely, defendant Nos.2 to 4 and they are the absolute owners of the same. Without seeking the relief of possession, the suit was not maintainable. The suit was barred by time.

5. Out of the said 6 acres 23 guntas, 4 acres 20 guntas was acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short 'KIADB'), 18 guntas was acquired by Mysuru Urban Development Authority for formation of ring road. Remaining 1 acre 25 guntas was sold to M. Ramakrishna S/o. Late Channappa on 28.06.2005. Therefore, defendants contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of KIADB, Mysuru Urban Development Authority and Sri M. Ramakrishna as parties.

6. On the basis of such pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and an additional issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit properties as claimed?

2. Whether defendants prove that suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of suit property as on the date of suit?

4. Whether defendant proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

5. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are illegally causing interference in the suit property?