The claim for declaration and possession was dismissed based on limitations, affirming that possession rights established prior to the suit rendered the plaintiff's claim invalid under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and possession is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Sy.No.65/1B, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas, which was acquired by him under a registered partition deed dated 12.12.1955. Since from the date of partition, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff was the head of their joint family. In order to increase the income of the joint family and also for the welfare of the family, he had formed a residential layout and about 20-25 residential sites have been sold to different persons under registered sale deeds. Such purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of their respective residential sites by putting up structures in it.

The remaining extent of Sy.No.65/1B, measuring approximately about 30 guntas and it is in possession of the plaintiff and joint family members. In the second week of March 2009, the plaintiff notices that defendant No.1 and 2 are in possession of a structure put up in a portion of the said property measuring to an extent of 30 x 60 feet, claiming that it bears site No.215. It has been described as suit schedule property. The plaintiff enquired defendant No.1 about their right to be in possession of the suit property, for which defendant No.1 informed that he became owner by virtue of a registered sale deed. When the plaintiff insisted for production of the registered sale deed, he changed the version and stated that it is the self-acquired property of his wife by virtue of a registered gift deed. The plaintiff insisted for production of registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.1. But, they have not produced the same. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants and inspite of the said notice, the defendants have not complied with the said demand. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of declaration and possession.

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. The suit property is measuring 1800 sq.feet with a 12 squares of constructed building. It is situated in Nimishamba Extension, which is situated in Kuvempunagar and Vivekananda Nagar, Mysuru. The entire area is developed as commercial area. At present, the market value is more than Rs.50 lakhs. The suit property is not an agricultural land. Without paying proper Court fee, the present suit has been filed. The suit is barred by law as per Section 27 of the LIMITATION ACT . The plaintiff and his wife Leelamma together sold the suit property in favour of one Jayalakshmi for valuable consideration of Rs.6,000/- through an unregistered sale deed dated 19.06.1982. On the date of sale deed, the said Jayalakshmi was put in possession of the said property in part performance of the contract. The said Jayalakshmi has paid the entire consideration amount. Subsequently, Jayalakshmi executed a GPA in favour of defendant No.1 on 08.09.2005 empowering him to transfer the plaint schedule property. Jayalakshmi has handed over the possession of the schedule property to defendant No.1 along with the documents.

Subsequently, on the basis of the GPA, defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed on 14.09.2005 in favour of his wife defendant No.2 and put her in possession of the property. Now, defendant No.2 is in possession of the property and she has constructed a house in it by investing huge amount. She is enjoying the propert