The court affirmed that ownership of immovable property can be established through registered sale deeds and municipal records, and clarified the applicable limitation period for possession claims.

JUDGMENT :

C M Joshi, J.

The LRs of the defendant No. 1 in O.S.No.102/2001 are before this Court in second appeal challenging the divergent finding of the first appellate Court in R.A.No.4/2011 dated 24.01.2013 whereby the suit came to be decreed are before this Court.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as below:

The Ratnabai wife of Hanmanth Rao had nine daughters. Plaintiff is daughter of the ninth daughter of Ratnabai. The defendant No.1/appellant is the son of Subhadrabai, who is fifth daughter of Ratnabai. Subhadrabai is defendant No.2 in the suit. The suit schedule property, which is the house bearing No.1-7-5 and 3 (old number), 1-7-4 (new number) situated at Purana Bazar Yadgir was standing in the name of Ratnabai. She executed a registered sale deed in favour of the grand father of the plaintiff, Bidarkar Ramachandra Rao on 15.11.1969 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. Plaintiff contend that Ramachandra Rao was in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner and his name was recorded in the municipal record and after his death, the name of the plaintiff is appearing in the municipal record and she is paying the tax. In the year 1991 the defendant started interference in enjoyment of the property and therefore she filed O.S.No.43/1991 for relief of injunction. After context the suit came to be dismissed, and appeal was filed in RA No.44/1995, which also came to be dismissed on 27.01.1999. Thereafter, the plaintiff was disposed from the suit schedule property illegally and when the plaintiff sought possession, the defendants refused and therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit i.e. O.S.No.102/2001 seeking the relief of declaration and possession of the suit schedule property.

4. The defendant No.1 resisted the suit contending that Hanmanth Rao S/o Siddoji Rao was the husband of Ratnabai and he was the owner of the suit schedule property. He died in the year 1960 living behind him Ratnabai and nine daughters. Therefore, Ratnabai and her nine daughters, including the defendant No.2 jointly inherited the suit property. They contended that the defendant No.1 and his mother defendant No.2 were looking after Ratnabai at Yadgir Town on 25.08.1989 and that she was of unsound mind. It was contended that defendant No.2 is in possession of suit property on her own right as the daughter of Hanumanth Rao and she is running a flour mill in the suit schedule property by obtaining necessary licence in the suit property now the defendant No.1 is doing carpentry work in the suit property. They also denied sale deed dated 26.12.1969 executed by Ratnabai in favour of Ramachandra Rao and contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked. On behalf of the defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and three witnesses examined as DW2 to DW4. Ex.D1 to Ex.D19 were marked in evidence. The Trial Court gave following findings on the issues framed and dismissed the suit.