JUDGMENT :

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He claimed the reliefs of declaration of his title over 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 10/2AP2 of Hallihal Village, Harihar Taluk and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession. The trial court by its judgment dated 17.01.2005 dismissed the suit.

2. The plaintiff’s case is that 10 acres 29 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10 of Hallihal Village belonged to one Karibasappa. His son Giriyappa sold 6 acres of land to the plaintiff’s grandfather Basavanagowda on 11.2.1949. Basavanagowda then sold the said land to Hanumanagowda on 3.6.1954. The plaintiff’s father purchased the very same land on 30.4.1957 and then sold 3 acres out of 6 acres to one Kuberappa on the northern side. The first defendant purchased this 3 acres of land from Kuberappa on 3.6.1992. But, on 31.7.1972, a partition had taken place according to which 2 acres of land was allotted to plaintiff’s father and 1 acre to his brother Nandigowda. On 28.10.1978 again there was a partition and in this partition the suit property, i.e. measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 10/2AP2 was allotted to the plaintiff. At that time the plaintiff was a minor and therefore his father was appointed as a guardian. Thus the plaintiff states to have become the owner of the suit property and claims to be in possession of the same.

3. On 4.5.2003 at about 10.00 am when the plaintiff’s wife was working in the suit property, the defendant No. 1 attempted to encroach the suit property on northern side. It is alleged that defendant No. 2 supported defendant No. 1 at that time. Therefore the plaintiff instituted a suit for the aforesaid relief.

4. The first defendant admitted the transactions stated in the plaint and also the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. He asserted to be in possession of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 10/2 having purchased the same from Kuberappa in the year 1992.

5. The second defendant denied all the transactions that the plaintiff has referred to. He stated that Karibasappa was his paternal grandfather. He had six sons namely Hanumagouda, Channappa, Basappa, Thimmanagouda, Giriyappa and Rudrappa. Second defendant is the son of Rudrappa. In an oral partition that had taken place about 80 years prior to institution of the suit, the land in Sy. No. 10 was allotted to Giriyappa and Rudrappa and in that partition northern portion of Sy. No. 10 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas fell to the share of Rudrappa and southern portion 5 acres 15 guntas fell to the share of Giriyappa. This is evidenced by the katchha hissa prepared by the revenue authorities. Sy. No. 10 was sub-divided into 10/1 and 10/2. The share allotted to Rudrappa was assigned 10/1 and Giriyappa, 10/2. Since then the second defendant and his father were in possession of the land in Sy. No. 10/1. Further contention of the second defendant is that his senior uncle Giriyappa subjected his 5 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 to mortgages several times and in all the mortgage deeds, the extent is shown as 5 acres 15 guntas only. But when he sold the land to Basavanagowda, i.e. the plaintiff’s grandfather, he mentioned the extent as 6 acres in the sale deed instead of 5 acres 15 guntas. Thereafter the plaintiff’s father Mahadevappa and uncle Nandigowda jointly sold 6 acres of land in favour of Kengajji Hanumagowda who in turn sold 6 acres of land to Mahadevappa, i.e. the plaintiff’s father. Thereafter plaintiff’s father sold 3 acres to Kuberagowda from whom the first defendant purchased 3 acres of land. Giving these details it is contended by the second defendant that the plaintiff or his ancestors were never in possession of 6 acres of land, they held possession of only 5 acres 15 guntas. He was in possession of 5 acres 14 guntas. The extent of possession of the lands by the parties was confirmed by the Civil Court in an earlier proceeding and this binds the plaintiff and he cannot contend to be in possession of