The central legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a valid and unchallenged Deed of Sale prevails over a defendant's claim of adverse possession and ownership in a property dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present regular second appeal is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the concurrent findings and conclusions rendered in the judgment and decree dtd. 18/10/2001 passed in O.S.No.258/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Periyapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') and the judgment and decree dtd. 14/12/2011 passed in R.A.No.53/2010 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court').

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the trial court.

3. The plaintiff filed the above suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property being land in Sy.No.35/06 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at Thammadahalli village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, on the premise that he had purchased the same under a registered Deed of Sale dtd. 16/10/1974 executed by Sri.Ramaiah, S/o.Krishnaiah for himself and his minor sons, viz., Krishna and Ramachandra and also his sister Smt.Ramamma, daughter of Krishnaiah. That the defendant was also one of the witnesses to the said Deed of Sale. That defendants without having any right, title or possession over the schedule property had filed regular appeal in R.A.No.36/1999-2000 before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur, challenging the revenue entries, whereby name of the defendant was entered by deleting the name of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had also preferred Revision Petition in R.P.No.29/2000-01 before the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.34752-34753/2007 were filed before this Court, wherein this Court by order dtd. 5/3/2002, had directed to file a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate remedy with respect to title and possession of the property. That by taking advantage of illegal entries, the defendant was causing interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and even denied the title of the plaintiff which constrained the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It was contended that owner of the suit property by name Krishnaiah passed away long back leaving him behind, his wife Kendamma and a son by name Ramaiah and daughter by name Ramamma. The said Kendamma died long back. Their son Ramaiah also died on 06/08/2002. Daughter Ramamma who is the mother of the defendant died about 8 years ago. That the defendant and one T.K.Krishna are the only sons of his mother Ramamma. His brother T.K.Krishna also passed away. That Ramamma and her brother Ramaiah had divided their father's property about 60 years back and severed from the joint family. In the said partition, the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 31 guntas had fallen to the share of his mother- Ramamma. That he and his mother were jointly cultivating the suit schedule property and after demise of his mother, he and his family members came in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. That pursuant to the partition that had taken place, revenue entries were effected in the name of his mother. The plaintiff had obtained the revenue records illegally in respect of the suit schedule property in his favour. That the said illegal entries had been rightly challenged by him before the Assistant Commissioner and had got them cancelled. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the Revision Petition. That his maternal uncle Ramaiah had no manner of right over the schedule property to convey in favour of the plaintiff. His mother had not at all alienated any bit of land in favour of plaintiff. His mother was not an executant to the registered Deed of Sale. That he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit is barred