The claim of title and plea of adverse possession cannot coexist. An unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purposes.

JUDGMENT :

The present regular second appeal by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2011 in R.A.No.15/2010 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-I, Raichur, whereby, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.153/2004 dated 20.03.2010 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-III at Raichur, was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. This Court, while admitting the appeal on 22.01.2021, framed the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the first appellate court justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court?"

4. While hearing the appeal on 28.08.2023, this Court framed the following additional substantial question of law:

“Whether the first appellate court was justified in holding that an unregistered sale deed cannot be looked into for collateral purpose for establishing the possession on the basis of the adverse possession in the present facts and circumstances of this case?”

5. Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel and Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader, have been heard on the substantial question of law framed by this court on 22.01.2021 and the additional substantial question of law framed on 28.08.2023.

6. Brief facts of the case are that:

The suit is for declaration in respect of land bearing Sy.No.52, measuring 01 acre 38 guntas and perpetual injunction. It is the contention of the plaintiff, that defendant No.1 had sold land Sy.No.52 to an extent of 04 acres 32 guntas in favour of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 13.06.1979 and land measuring 01 acre 38 guntas of the said survey number has been again sold to the plaintiff by defendant No.1 on 21.12.1979. It is the contention of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to the extent of 01 acre 38 guntas continuously without interference and adversely to the knowledge of the defendant No.1 as owner and he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. It is further averred that the sale deed executed on 21.12.1979 in respect of the suit schedule property to the extent of 01 acre 38 guntas was not registered, however, the plaintiff has been in possession as owner of the suit schedule property.

7. Pursuant to the suit summons by the trial Court, the defendants appeared. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement, inter alia, contending and admitting that, in Sy.No.52, an extent of 04 acres 32 guntas was earlier sold by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff on 13.06.1979. However, denied that the extent of an area measuring 01 acre 38 guntas in the said survey number was not executed by any document as contended by the plaintiff on 21.12.1979 and denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property adversely to the knowledge of the defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Defendant No.1 has specifically denied about the execution of the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 21.12.1979 in favour of the plaintiff.

8. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following:

“ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 has handed over the possession of suit property under un-registered sale deed on 21.12.1979?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has perfected the title over the suit property by adverse possession?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves illegal interference by defendant No.1?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs sought?"

9. In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-3 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D19.

10. The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and d