The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adverse possession, the nature of proof required in cases of adverse possession against the government, and the requirements for establishing adverse possession, especially in cases involving properties not reserved for public utility.

JUDGMENT :

M.I. ARUN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 25232/2008 dated 04.09.2021 by the XXVI Additional City Civil Judge at Mayohall, Bangalore (CCH-20), plaintiff therein has preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that 1 acre 38 guntas of land in Sy. No. 5 of Bhoganahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk was granted in favour of the Poojari/Archak of Sri. Muthurayaswamy Temple by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bengaluru vide order dated 16.07.1958. The said Archak sold the land in favour of the plaintiff as per the sale deed dated 01.10.1960 and the plaintiff in turn sold the same in favour of one Nazeer in the year 1966. But however, he repurchased the same from the same Nazeer in the year 1967 and he has been in continuous possession of the same since the date of the first purchase on 01.10.1960 without any hindrance or interference and he contends that he has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession. It is further submitted that some of the villagers in order to knock off the property filed a false suit in O.S. No. 626/2003 which was renumbered as O.S. No. 280/2004. The 2nd defendant in order to harass the plaintiff has tried to interfere and disrupt the possession of the plaintiff and hence for the said reasons, the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit with the following reliefs:

“(i) To declare that the plaintiff is the owner of schedule property acquired by way of adverse possession and continues in possession of the suit property right from 1960.

(ii) To grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking any decisions and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in any manner either by defendants or from their agents, servants or any persons claiming through under them.

(iii) To grant any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit pass under the circumstances of this case.”

4. The said original suit went uncontested and hence, the same was allowed by judgment and decree dated 12.10.2011. The same was challenged by the defendants in RFA No. 126/2013 and this Court by its order dated 06.01.2021 was pleased to remand the matter back to the trial Court permitting the defendants to file the written statement and contest the suit.

5. Thereafter, all the defendants being the State filed the written statement through defendant No. 4 wherein, it is contended that the land in question was granted in favour of Sri. Muthurayaswamy Temple and not in favour of the Archak and the alienation of the property in favour of the plaintiff by the Archak of the temple was illegal and that the plaintiff has failed to prove his adverse possession and on the said ground the defendants prayed for dismissal of the original suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the occupancy right had been granted in respect of the suit schedule land in favour of one Dasappa-Priest of Sri. Muthurayaswamy Temple of Bhoganahalli village by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition?

(ii) Whether the description of the schedule property is correct?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has purchased the suit schedule land from his predecessor-in-title as averred at Para-3 of the plaint?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

(v) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has acquired title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession against the defendants?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction as sought for?

(vii) What order or decree?

7. The plaintiff to prove his case has examined three witnesses and go