Point of Law: Mutation or revenue entries are made only for fiscal purposes for deciding liability to pay land tax or land revenue.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit in O.S.No.22/2012 dated 11.12.2014 and the judgment and decree of dismissal of appeal in R.A.No.2/2015 dated 16.12.2016 and pray this Court to set aside both the judgments and allow the appeal and consequently, pass the judgment and decree in favour of the appellant.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant-plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction and later amended for possession is that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Muttu, S/o. Honnegowda and the same has been purchased by the plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.12.1972 and he was put in possession of the property. The plaintiff is the absolute owner thereof and he has improved the suit schedule property by spending huge money and has raised coconut garden and paying taxes to the concerned authority. The defendants having no manner of right, title or possession over the suit schedule property made an attempt to interfere with his possession and made an attempt to dispossess him from the suit schedule property by denying the title over the suit schedule property. Hence, suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that, during the pendency of the appeal in R.A.No.147/2006, the defendants herein taking advantage of the fact that no injunction was granted, illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and hence, sought for the relief of possession.

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit property was originally bearing Sy.No.8 and it belonged to one Muthaiah and his son Mahadevan and after durasth in the year 1964, it is renumbered as Sy.No.52 and the said Muthaiah and his son Mahadevan being the original owner in possession of the suit property, for their family necessity, sold the property in favour of defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 12.04.1991 for a valuable consideration of Rs.20,000/- and thereafter, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners and improved the property by availing loan from the bank and constructed a pump-house and farm house and spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for improvement of the suit schedule property and have grown 260 coconut trees and 450 areca nut trees and the revenue records are also standing in the name of the defendants and they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the issues and additional issues with regard to dispossession and also whether the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, the defendant No.3 examined himself as and also examined one independent witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D49.

5. The Trial Court, considering the arguments of the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, answered all the issues, including the additional issues as ‘negative’ and dismissed the suit. Hence, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.2/2015, wherein the grounds urged by the appellant before the First Appellate Court is that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and particularly, failed to take note of Ex.P7-Encumbrance Certificate and the loan made in favour of the plaintiff from the Co-operative society and the Lower Court has completely ignored the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.No.13849/2002 which are relating to the direction to the lower Court in O.S.No.406/1998 not to be influenced