The plaintiff must provide clear documentary evidence to substantiate claims of ownership over land and its precise boundaries. Without such evidence, claims may be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This matter is listed for admission.

3. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A.No.110/2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.53/2009.

4. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff and her legal representatives before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction is that the husband of the plaintiff by name Sham Singh was a tenant in respect of 39 guntas of land, which was divided into two portions as 27½ guntas and 12½ guntas in Sy.No.5. Subsequently, the said land was granted in favour of husband of the plaintiff by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala and Form No.10 was issued in favour of her husband in respect of the suit schedule properties. The husband of the plaintiff had also paid premium as per notice issued by the Special Tahsildar attached to the Land Tribunal and the name of husband of plaintiff was mutated in M.R.No.1/82-83. The husband of the plaintiff had also constructed houses over the suit schedule properties and leased in favour of the tenants. After the death of husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff continued in possession of the suit schedule properties and mutation was also accepted in her name in IHC No.617/83-84. The defendants who are the residents of the same village of the plaintiff had purchased 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1A from Smt. Mallamma and visited the schedule 'B' property and proclaimed that the property purchased by them is located in suit 'B' schedule property. On the basis of the sale deed, they have also mutated their names in respect of 5 guntas of land and they have also filed a suit in O.S.No.191/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) at Nelamangala against the husband of the plaintiff and brothers. The defendants on the strength of the sale deed was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff.

5. The Trial Court considered the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement. Since the defendants claimed their right based on the sale deed, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner in possession of "A" and "B" schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of her suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for?

4. What order or decree?

6. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff and her legal representatives have examined Special Power of Attorney Holder as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW.2. They got marked 50 documents as Exs.P1 to P50. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 30 documents as Exs.D1 to D30.

7. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence. Since the suit was filed for the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the Trial Court taking note of the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement and also the evidence of respective parties, discussed in paragraph No.15 with regard to bifurcating the suit schedule property as 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and also the claim made by the plaintiff that suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are comprised in Sy.No.5/1