To claim adverse possession, the possessor must admit the title of the true owner and prove possession for the statutory period with the necessary animus.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal came to be admitted by framing the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the impugned judgment and decree are perverse for not considering the material evidence on record?”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents.

3. The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in O.S.No.340/2004 against the appellant (defendant) seeking declaration that they are the owners of the schedule property and also sought possession of the same.

4. The respondents purchased the schedule property on the basis of sale deed (Ex.P1) dated 19.12.1966. The respondents(plaintiffs) pleaded that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and one Gangamma, the mother of appellant(defendant) was residing as a tenant under the father of the respondent namely R.C. Bhadraiah on a rent of Rs.10/-per month and the tenancy was oral. The said Bhadraiah was collecting the rent of suit schedule property and after his death, mother of respondents namely Chudamuniyamma was collecting the rent and after her death, the respondents (plaintiffs) are collecting the rent. The appellant (defendant) subsequently refused to pay rent and on the basis of fraudulent entry in the revenue records, she claims that she is the owner of suit schedule property.

5. The appellant (defendant) in her written statement contended that she is in possession of suit schedule property since 12 years from 1974 with the knowledge of father of respondents (plaintiffs) and thereafter to the knowledge of the respondents (plaintiffs) continuously from 1974. As such, she claims the title of suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. She pleaded that she entered into suit schedule property and at that time, there was dilapidated tiles roof structure and she got it repaired to make it fit for dwelling and thereafter put up another structure of hollow bricks.

6. Respondent No.4 –Jaya Prakash has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The appellant (defendant) came to be examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D31 and she also examined one Tulasiram as DW.2.

7. The Court at first instance taking into consideration the contrary stand taken by the appellant/defendant that she claiming the property based on the allotment of the said property in her mother’s name has held that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove her adverse possession over the suit schedule property and decreed the suit of the respondents (plaintiffs).

8. The appellant/defendant challenged the said decree in RA.No.24/2007 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 21.12.2013 by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District sitting at Anekal. There are concurrent findings by both the Courts. The appellant (defendant) has challenged both judgments and decrees in this second appeal.

9. The second appeal came to be admitted on the substantial question of law as noted above.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Court at first instance and the Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the material evidence on record. He contends that the suit schedule property as per panchayath records is standing in the name of appellant (defendant) and she obtained license and constructed building over it and she also examined Adyaksha of panchayat as DW.2 who is stated to have granted the funds under Indira Yojana Scheme to the appellant/defendant. He contends that conclusion arrived at by both the Courts is perverse and they have not considered the material on record.

11. The counsel for respondent argued that the appellant (defendant) has taken the defence of adverse possession but in her evidence she claims that the title over the property by virtue of allotment of suit schedule property to her mother by the Government. The defence of the appellant (defendant) and her evidence are contrary. The Trial Court taking note that she has not produced any document to establish that the said suit schedule property is all