The court established that admissions regarding property boundaries and the validity of sale deeds are critical in determining ownership, and discrepancies in measurements do not negate established ownership if boundaries are clearly defined and accepted.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 3/1/2007 passed in R.A. No.53/1998 on the file the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Sagar.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent is absent, hence, his arguments is taken as nil.

3. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property is Khaneshumari No.10 of Kubatur village in Aravatti hobli, Sorab taluk measuring east to west 56 feet and north to south 100 feet Mangalore tiled temporary house standing within the boundaries to the east by Khaneshumari No.9 (property belonging to Narayanachar), west by Khaneshumari No.11 (property belonging to Veerabasaiah), north by pathway and south by cart road. It is contended that the vacant site of suit schedule property was formerly belonged to one Keriyamma W/o Eligoru Sannappa of Kubatur village. One Nagappa S/o Keriyappa of Sarekoppa, Kubatur village had purchased the said property on 4/10/1983 through Kariyamma and the said sale deed was registered on 7/10/1983. After purchasing the suit schedule property of vacant site, the said Nagappa got changed the khata to his name. Afterwards the said Nagappa obtained the licence from Kubatur Panchayath on 18/12/1983 to construct a house in the suit schedule property and constructed a Mangalore tiled temporary house with mud walls and let out the entire suit schedule property including the house constructed by him to defendant No.1 in the year 1984 on a monthly rent of Rs.25.00. The tenancy month was starting from first day of each month and ending on the last day of the said month. It is further contended that on 8/3/1989, the said Nagappa sold the entire suit schedule property including the house for a valuable consideration of Rs.2, 500.00 in favour of the plaintiff and the said sale deed was registered on 9/3/1989 and a symbolic possession was also handed over to the plaintiff by his vendor. Since then, the plaintiff become the owner of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the plaintiff's vendor Nagappa attorned the tenancy of defendant No.1 intimating that he had sold the property to the plaintiff by way of legal notice dtd. 4/4/1989 and also informed defendant No.1 to pay the rent for the month of March 1989 onwards to the plaintiff. Since the suit schedule property is required for the plaintiff for bonafide self occupation, he got issued quit notice on 1/5/1989 terminating the tenancy of defendant No.1 by the end of 31/5/1989 and also asked defendant No.1 to pay the arrears of rent from the month of March 1989 up to date. Despite defendant No.1 is aware of the fact that the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit schedule property and he is the tenant under him, had sent a untenable reply denying the title of Nagappa and the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also the tenancy. It is also contended that defendant No.1 got executed sale deed through defendant No.2 and the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. It is also contended that the plaintiff got issued another legal notice on 3/10/1989 but defendant No.1 did not vacate the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration and possession.

5. In response to the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of Khaneshumari No.10 of Kubatur village and contended that Keriyamma was not having any title to sell the suit schedule property in favour of Nagappa and also in turn the said Nagappa also not having any right to convey any title in favour of the plaintiff. It is admitted that there exists Mangalore tiled house in the suit schedule property but contende