The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence in establishing property ownership and the burden of proof in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court declaring the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and granted permanent injunction against the defendant in O.S.No.198/1991 and confirmed the judgment and decree in R.A.No.121/2005.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that suit land bearing Sy.No.139 total extent is 25 acres 38 guntas including kharab of 10 guntas was the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Out of the said land, the plaintiffs father had sold 2 acres 20 guntas to defendants father on its western side in the year 1942. Remaining land continued to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs father. The plaintiff is the only son to his father. After death of plaintiffs father, plaintiff is continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The khata of the suit land continued to be in the name of the plaintiffs father Mudlagiriyappa and he paid the tax during his life time and after his death, plaintiff has paid the land revenue, whereas, the remaining area was given as Sy.No.139/1A and property which was sold in favour of the defendants father the Sy.No.139/1B was allotted. The defendant in collusion with revenue authorities got written the pahani in his name at the instance of the Tahsildar and the same was challenged and Assistant Commissioner has set aside the order and the same was questioned before the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner reversed the same and the same has been challenged in the writ petition and in the writ petition an observation is made that parties to approach the Civil Court for declaring their rights. It is the case of the plaintiff that based on the said entries, defendant is interfering with possession of the plaintiff.

4. The defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting that father of the defendant had purchased 2 acres 20 guntas in the year 1940 and denied all other averments made in the plaint.

5. The defendant contend that suit schedule property is his ancestral property and his father was the owner of Sy.No.139/1A measuring 18 acres 27 guntas. During the life time of the defendants father, defendant separated from the family which is evidenced by the Registered Partition Deed dated 15.11.1960 and 3 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No.139/1A was allotted to the share of the defendant and the remaining land was retained by his father. The land that was allotted to the share of defendant had partitioned and is numbered as Sy.No.139/1B. After the death of his father, the defendant and his brother succeeded to the suit property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff in collusion with revenue authorities got his name entered in column Nos.9 and 10 of the pahani for the year 1975-76 and hence, proceedings are initiated before the Deputy Commissioner. It is also contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant in O.S.No.2/1985 for the relief of declaration and injunction and the plaint was returned to present the same before the competent court of law. When the plaintiff has filed the same suit alleging that defendant has denied his title for the year 1991 and as such, the suit is not maintainable. It is also contended that suit is barred by limitation under Section 58 of Limitation Act. Alternative the defendant contend that he is perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession for having knowledge the same for more than 12 years uninterruptedly, openly as of right and adverse to the interest of the real owner along with his brother.

6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant framed total 8 issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1