A suit for possession of immovable property based on title must be filed within the limitation period prescribed by law, and the plaint must establish a valid cause of action.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by the second defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 2014 in O.S. No. 7363/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-VIII C/C 37TH Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for declaration and possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are, one Late A.P. Shankar (first defendant's husband and second defendant's father) was the owner of the suit Schedule Property. He sold it in favour of one Sayeeda Fathima under a Sale deed dated 12.04.1996. Immediately after execution of the Sale Deed, on the very same day, she leased the property in favour of A.P. Shankar. Subsequently, Sayeeda Fathima sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff vide Sale Deed dated November 24, 1997. After purchasing the property, plaintiff filed a suit,[OS. No. 8108/1998] for possession and mesne profits against the defendants herein. In the said suit, defendants were placed ex-parte. However, the suit was dismissed holding that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff could seek remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. Thereafter, plaintiff filed Eviction Petition,[HRC No. 178/2006] under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('Rent Act' for short) and the same was allowed granting three months' time to the defendants herein, to vacate and handover the vacant possession. Defendants challenged the said order before this Court in H.R.R.P. No.8/2009. This Court allowed the said petition and dismissed eviction petition reserving liberty to the plaintiff to file appropriate proceedings under Section 27(r) of the Rent Act. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed the instant suit and the same has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal by the second defendant.

4. Plaintiff's case is, the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Late A.P. Shankar. He sold it to Sayeeda Fathima and she sold it to the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has acquired legal right and title over the property. After selling the property to Sayeeda Fathima, A.P. Shankar had remained in possession of the property, as a tenant. After his death, defendants continued in possession as tenants. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Defendants are unauthorized occupants without any status. Defendants have also denied ownership of the plaintiff. With these averments, plaintiff brought the instant suit seeking relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

5. Defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement contending inter alia that the property bearing No.36 measuring 40 ft. X 60 ft. was allotted to one A.D. Parthasarathy (A.P. Shankar's father). He died intestate leaving behind his wife Andalamma, son A.P. Shankar and his wife (Sabitha Devi). After death of Parthasarathy, Andalamma's name was entered in the Khatha records. Thereafter, khatha entry was changed in the name of A.P. Shankar. Thus, the said property was a joint family property consisting of A.P. Shankar and his son Suresh Kumar (second defendant). In order to provide a suitable accommodation to his daughter Mahishavardhini [defendant No.1(a)], A.P. Shankar sold a portion of the property measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. to one Ghouse Mohideen. In the remaining area of 30 ft. x 40 ft., a house and two shops were built and A.P. Shankar lived in that house with his family.

6. After selling a portion of the property in 1992, a dispute arose in the family and A.P. Shankar deserted his family members and starting living separately in Ganesh Cottage, situated in R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru. First defendant filed P.Mis. No.18/1995 seeking maintenance. She got a notice published in Deccan Herald Newspaper dated April 16, 1995 intimating the general public not to deal with the property. During the pendency of P.Mis. No.18/1995, A.P. Shankar had all