The main legal point established is that to prove adverse possession, the claimant must provide evidence of actual, open, exclusive, continuous possession of the property for the statutory period, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by Prl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S. No.30/1992 which was confirmed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A. No.46/2017. Both the Courts dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to the suit properties by adverse possession.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs’ father (Ramoji Rao) and defendants’ father (Yalloji Rao). It is claimed that the father of the plaintiffs executed a relinquishment deed dated 05.12.1952 in favour of the father of the defendants. However, the possession of the suit properties was not delivered even after the execution of the relinquishment deed and that the plaintiffs’ father, mother and the plaintiffs continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Thereafter the father of the plaintiffs’ died on 13.03.1981 and the plaintiffs and their mother continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they were growing ragi, paddy and other allied crops in the suit properties and that they were in possession of the suit properties for more than 20 years and thereby had perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession. They alleged that the defendants were strangers to the suit properties and they had no subsisting right, title or interest therein. Nonetheless, the defendants colluding with the revenue officials had managed to get their names entered in the revenue records. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants denied their title over the suit properties and hence sought for a declaration that they had perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession and also sought perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

4. Initially, the defendants No.1, 6 and 7 appeared before the Court and filed a Memo on 10.03.1992 stating that they have no objection to decree the suit. Thereafter the defendant No.1 appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit stating that he had not consented to decree the suit and that the defendants No.7 and 9 had falsely impersonated him before the Trial Court. The defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs were residing at Bangalore in Lingadevarapalya which was far away from the suit properties. Further he claimed that their father was enjoying the suit properties after the execution of the release deed in the year 1952. He denied the contention that the plaintiffs were in adverse possession of the suit properties.

5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the issues and set down the case for trial. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-35. Two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. The legal representative of defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D-47.

6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs did not prove that they were in possession of the suit properties after the execution of the relinquishment deed. The Trial Court noted from the revenue records that it was the defendants who were in possession of the suit properties and thus dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, plaintiffs filed R.A. No.46/2017. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration :

i. Does the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties?

ii. Whe