JUDGMENT :

Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for appellant has appeared in-person and Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 has appeared through video conferencing.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The short facts of the case are as under: -The land situated at Veeranagenahally village, Kasaba Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk measuring 3.20 guntas in Sy.No.10/21P originally belonged to one Kataiah S/o.Kataiah. He had sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1959. Earlier, the survey number of the land was survey No.10 and subsequently, the Authorities concerned have assigned the survey numbers as 10/21 and 10/21p. The land was identified with the boundaries also. After purchase of the property, Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa became the absolute owner of the property and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the above said land.

The first defendant-Eranna is the brother of the second Defendant -Chikkerappa .The first defendant purchased the suit schedule property measuring 1.30 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964 from the owner –Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa.

Plaintiff averred that he has purchased that entire land in Sy.No.10/21P measuring 03.20 guntas for a valuable consideration of Rs.3000/-under a registered sale deed dated 28.12.1982 from Kariyappa S/o.Yarrappa. He stated that ever since the date of the purchase of the land, he is in continuous peaceful and actual possession and enjoyment of the land openly adversely notoriously hostile to the interest and knowledge of defendants for more than statutory period of limitation i.e.,12 years and therefore, he acquired title to the suit schedule property by adverse possession.

It is stated that though defendant No.1 acquired title under the registered sale deed dated 14.05.1964, his right gets extinguished by law of limitation and hence, loses his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. Contending that defendants have no right over the suit schedule property and at the instance of persons who are not in good relation with plaintiff tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and therefore, he sought the aid of the Court and seeking appropriate reliefs.

On service of summons, defendants appeared and filed written statement. They denied the plaint averments. They stated that the entire land bearing Sy.No.10/21 measuring 03 acres 20 guntas was owned by one Kataiah S/o.Kataiah. He had sold the said land to one Kariyappa S/o.Yarappa, through a registered sale deed dated 14.03.1959. Defendant No.1 purchased western half portion under a registered sale deed dated 14.5.1964 and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property ever since the date of purchase of the land.

Defendants contended that Kariyappa had no right to sell the entire 03 acres 20 guntas in favor of plaintiff as he has already parted 1 acre 30 guntas in favor of defendant No.1 and therefore, they sought to urge that the sale deed dated 28.12.1982 is a fraudulent one and does not create any right in favor of plaintiff in respect of western half portion of survey number. They also denied that plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 28.12.1982?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants have not acted upon registered sale-deed dated 14.05.1964?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that he has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?

4. Whether the alleged cause of action is proved?

5. What decree or order?"

To substantiate the claim, plain