The judgment establishes that long-standing entries in revenue records create a presumption of title, and that adverse possession can be established through continuous, open, and hostile possession, which must be adequately pleaded and proven.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of CPC, by plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in RA No.305/2011 dtd. 10/11/2011 whereby the learned District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS no.401/2005.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title of 1 acre 20 guntas in R.S.No.285/2 situated at Kallehol village, Belgaum Taluka and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Alternatively, the plaintiffs have also sought delivery of possession of suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties are owned by Shattu Neelu Devarmani and he sold the same to one Parashuram Bavaku Vetal under registered sale deed dtd. 23/9/1963. Ever since the date of sale, Parashuram was in possession of the suit schedule property and after his death, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also alleged that after the death of Shattu Neelu Devarmani the names of defendant nos.1 to 5 came to be mutated in the revenue records and suit land is yet to be converted in to Raitawa and the deceased Shattu Neelu Devarmani has taken the responsibility of converting into Raitawa. It is alleged that one week before filing of the suit, defendant nos.1 to 5 interfered in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by plaintiff by ploughing the suit land with bullocks and when the plaintiffs disclose the sale by their ancestors, the defendants disputed the sale and therefore, they filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction and alternatively, sought for possession of the suit schedule property.

4. Defendant no.5 has appeared and filed his written statements denying the execution of sale deed in the year 1969 in favour of Parashuram. It is asserted that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by defendants predecessors in title by Neelu Shetteppa Mahar and after his death on 26/12/1967, the property devolved on Shattu Neelu Devarmani and M.E.No.913 dtd. 3/3/1968 was certified. It is contended that Shattu had no legal competency to sell the suit property in favour of Parashuram and the possession was never parted with in favour of Parashuram. It is asserted that defendants have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of suit schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and after the death of Shattu, the name of defendant nos.1 to

5. came to mutated in the revenue records and they are in actual possession and cultivation since time immemorial. He contended that suit for declaration is barred by law of limitation. It is also asserted that the suit land is Maharki inam land and not regranted and converted into Raitawa and sale transaction is hit by the provisions of Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 and they have also sought for declaration of their title by adverse possession. 5. The Trial Court on the basis of the rival pleadings has framed the following issues:-

ISSUES

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are owners in possession of suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by Shattu, dtd. 23/9/1969?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants obstructed for their enjoyment of suit property?

3. Whether the defendants No.1 to 5 prove that they are in possession of suit property for more than 12 years uninterruptedly, openly and peacefully within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and thereby have perfected their title by adverse possession?

4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit?

5. Whether the valuation of suit and court fee paid is proper?

6. To what relief the parties are entitled to?

7. What decree or order?"

6. Plaintiff no.2 got examined as PW1 and three witnesses were