The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish ownership and title in property disputes, and a failure to present adequate evidence will result in dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013, passed in R.A.No. 137/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2007, passed in O.S.No. 20/2003 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hunsur.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants.

3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No. 13 measuring 2 acres situated in Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk. It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No. 13 measuring 4 acres was granted to one Siddalingaiah by Deputy Commissioner, Mysore on 09.04.1965. Since then, the said Siddalingaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the said property as the absolute owner. On 10.08.1983, the said Siddalingaiah executed a Will in favour of one K. Devappa i.e., the brother of plaintiff, bequeathing the said property. Siddalingaiah died in the year 1985. After his death, the Will came into force. It is contended that the plaintiff and his brother, viz. K.Devappa were living in joint family till the year 2001 and in joint possession and enjoyment of the above said 4 acre of land. There was a family arrangement between the plaintiff and K.Devappa on 31.03.2001. In the said arrangement, the plaintiff and his brother have partitioned the joint family properties by a registered partition deed dated 31.03.2001. In the said partition, the suit property i.e., 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 13 was fallen to the share of the plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said suit schedule property as the absolute owner. It is contended that the plaintiff is paying land revenue in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants No. 2 and 3 having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had made several representations to defendant No. 2 to change the katha in his name. Defendant No. 2 has not passed any order. It is contended that the plaintiff had obtained loan from Vysya Bank, Hunsur Branch on the suit schedule property. The defendant No. 2 issued an eviction notice on 27.06.2001 and defendant No. 3 issued notice on 09.01.2003, calling upon the plaintiff to vacate and handover the suit schedule property. Thus cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. Defendants filed written statement denying that land bearing Sy.No. 13 measuring 4 acres of Hanchya Village was granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore in favour of one Siddalingaiah and it is also denied that Siddalingaiah was in possession of the suit schedule property and he has executed a Will in favour of K. Devappa bequeathing the suit schedule property bearing 4 acres in Sy.No. 13. It is contended that the suit schedule property is a Government land and plaintiff is trying to cultivate the suit land and cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. On these grounds sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintif