Title and possession based on registered sale deeds prevails unless credible evidence refutes ownership; mere claims of adverse possession without substantiating proof are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

R.S.A. No.2147/2007 is arising from the judgments and decrees in O.S. No.102/1984 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hosadurga and R.A. No.135/2001 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere.

2. R.S.A. No.2141/2007 is arising from the judgments and decrees in O.S. No.528/1989 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hosadurga and R.A. No.135/2001 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere.

3. Both suits were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment. The plaintiff in O.S. No.102/1984 who is also defendant No.1 in O.S. No.528/1989 has filed R.A. No.135/2001 and the appeal is dismissed. Hence, these two second appeals are filed.

4. The plaintiff in O.S. No.102/1984 who is the defendant No.1 in O.S. No.528/1989 is referred to as the appellant in this case. The contesting defendants in O.S. No.102/1984 who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.528/1989 are referred to as respondents.

5. The appellant filed a suit in respect of property bearing Survey No.106/2, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in Govinakalla village, Taluk Hosadurga. The suit in O.S. No.102/1984 is essentially filed on the premise that the plaintiff has acquired the title and possession over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1948. Appellant claims that he purchased the property from one Devaragonda Mariyappa. It is further stated that the respondents are interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly, sought relief of declaration of title and injunction.

6. During the pendency of the suit, an application is filed to amend the plaint and the appellant sought possession of 25 guntas on the premise that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.

7. The respondents who filed O.S. No.528/1989 claimed title over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 03.03.1981. The respondents traced the title to the property from the original sale deed dated 25.01.1934 executed by D. Mariyappa, referred to above.

8. It is further stated by the respondents that Mariyappa sold the property bearing survey No.106/1 measuring 3 acre 15 guntas and 106/2 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas to Mudimallanaika and Mudimallanaika in the year 1936 sold the property to Govindappa and Govindappa has sold the suit property to P.S. Thimmaiah Naidu on 03.03.1981. The respondents also claimed adverse possession in the alternative.

9. Both the Courts concluded that the plea of adverse possession is not established. The Courts also concluded that the appellants claim to the title over the property on the basis of registered sale deed of 1948 is not established. The Courts also concluded that on 21.01.1934, original vendor Mariyappa has sold his entire property to Mudimallanaika and Mudimallanaika in the year 1936 has sold the property to Govindappa and Govindappa sold the suit property to P.S. Thimmaiah Naidu. Thus, came to the conclusion that appellant who claims to have purchased the property under the sale deed of 1948 has not acquired any title over the property. Consequently, O.S. No.102/1984 is dismissed and O.S. No.528/1989 is also dismissed.

10. As already noticed above, both suits clubbed together and disposed of by common judgment, there are two separate decrees. The law requires the person to file two separate appeals against two separate decrees in case if he is aggrieved. The plaintiff in O.S. No.102/1984 has filed only one app