The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of valid termination of tenancy, the burden of proof in adverse possession claims, and the consequences of failing to assert ownership within the prescribed period of limitation.

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court wherein the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside and suit is decreed directing the defendants herein to handover vacant possession of suit 'A' schedule premises.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession in O.S.No.21/2005. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of suit schedule 'A' property. The plaintiff contended that the property was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff herein. It was further pleaded that defendants are the widow and children of one late K.P.Bapu Mestry. The father of the plaintiff let out the suit schedule premises in favour of defendants ancestor by executing the rent bond dtd. 6/7/1955 on a monthly rent of Rs.6.00 payable by the end of every month. The plaintiff contended that the rent bond expired on 31/6/1956, however, the tenant continued to reside in the building premises as a tenant. The plaintiff further contended that the said K.P.Bapu Mestry made a false claim by filing Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The plaintiff contended that he has terminated the tenancy by issuing a quit notice on 18/4/2002 and consequently sought for possession from the defendants and also sought for mesne profits with effect from 1/6/2002.

4. The defendants, on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The defendants contended that husband of defendant No.1 filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal and the matter is pending before this Court in W.P.No.1917/2002. The defendants claimed that the matter is seized before this Court and the matter is pending for consideration for entitlement of occupancy rights pertaining to schedule 'A' property and therefore, contended that the present suit needs to be stayed till the final determination of the tenancy dispute. The defendants also contended that the possession held by late Bapu Mestry is hostile animus against the father of plaintiff and therefore, the original tenant Bapu Mestry and his legal heirs have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

5. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW.1 and let in documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-11. The defendants though set up a plea of adverse possession, however, did not chose to lead any evidence.

6. The Trial Court in absence of contest answered issue No.4 in the affirmative relating to plea of adverse possession. The Trial Court held that defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. While examining issue No.4, Trial Court by referring to Article 67 of the Limitation Act was of the view that tenancy expired in 1956 and therefore, was of the view that quit notice issued on 18/4/2002 is bad under law. The Trial Court also held that late Bapu Mestry and his legal heirs have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and therefore, the rights, if any, of plaintiff's father and after his death, plaintiff, stood extinguished. The Trial Court also held that there is no valid termination of tenancy and accordingly, answered issue No.2 in the negative.

7. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred appeal in R.A.No.74/2015.

8. The Appellate Court has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court having examined the material on record found that original tenant filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal and therefore, the controversy in regard to tenancy rights of husband of defendant No.1 was pending consideration. Therefore, Appellate Court was of the view that there is a bar under Sec. 132 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is in this background, Appellate Court was of the view that plaintiff is entitled for benefit under Sec. 14 of Limitation Act. The Appellate Court was of the view that question of tenant ho