The plaintiff must prove ownership and interference with findings of fact by the High Court is limited under Sec. 100 of CPC.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Sri.Adithya Bhat., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.G.S.Bhat., for the appellant has appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of III Addl. District Judge, Mysuru.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts are these: The plaintiff contended that land measuring to the extent of 05 Acres 03 Guntas in Sy.No.45 situated at Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk was granted to one Sri.Dyava by the Government in the year 1936. In the year 1945, he executed a Gift Deed in respect of Sy.No.45 in favor of his sister Smt.Lingamma to an extent of 01 Acre. It is said that the original plaintiff Sri.Nangegowda @ Nanjaiah purchased the property from Smt.Lingamma in the year 1956. The survey number mentioned in the sale deed is 45. The plaintiff averred that the defendants are the children of Dyava and they tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, he was constrained to take shelter under the Court of Law and sought for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction. After service of the suit summons, defendants 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed written statement and denied the plaint averments. They contended that the schedule land is granted land and attracts the provisions of the P.T.C.L Act and as such it cannot be alienated to anyone except with prior permission of the Government. They disputed the Gift Deed and the sale deed. Among other grounds, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the Issues. The original plaintiff Nangegowda was reported dead during the pendency of the suit. Hence, his legal representatives were brought on record. Thereafter, the legal representative No.2 of the original plaintiff was also reported dead and hence, his legal representatives were brought on record. The GPA holder of the first legal representative of the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two more witnesses were examined as PW2 & 3 and produced twelve documents which were marked at Exs.P.1 to P12. On the other hand, the second defendant examined as DW1 and examined a witness as DW2 and produced three documents which were marked at Exs.D.1 to D3. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court declined to grant the relief of declaration and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. On appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of CPC.

6. Sri. Adithya Bhat., learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgments and Decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are opposed to the law, and evidence on record, and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. Next, he submits that the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts are contrary to the documents produced by the plaintiff and especially, Ex.P.5 Gift Deed dtd. 2/1/1945. The said Gift Deed was executed in favor of Smt.Lingamma and in turn, she has sold the suit property in favor of the appellant's father under the Registered Sale Deed dtd.:11/6/1956 as per Ex.P.1. It is also submitted that these two documents are 30 years old documents and there is a presumption under Sec. 90 of Indian Evidence Act. A further submission is made that the Courts have erroneously held that the suit schedule property is a granted land and the same is hit by the PTCL Act. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Courts have erroneously and wrongly held that Smt.Lingamma is not the owner of the property solely on the ground that her name was not entered in the Revenue Records. It is also submitted that the courts have erred in concluding that the sale deed is a sham document. Learned counsel further submits that the findi