A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if the party claiming it does not acknowledge the original owner's title, as opposed claims are inconsistent and void.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012, passed in R.A.No.46/2008 by the learned Additional District Judge, Hassan, and the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2008 passed in O.S.No.116/1996 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hassan.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.7 and 8, respondent Nos.1 to 10 were the plaintiffs, and other respondents were the other defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also to declare the registered sale deed dated 02.08.1995, allegedly executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8 in respect of suit schedule property, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

3.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.18, and defendants No.1 to 5 were the owners of land bearing Sy.No.19 in Chikkabyadagere village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk. The father of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5, agreed to exchange their lands, accordingly, defendants No.1 to 5 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs’ father on 07.02.1962, and accordingly, the plaintiffs’ father also executed a registered sale deed.

3.2. Defendants No.1 to 5 sold the land bearing Sy.No.19 in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. Similarly, the plaintiffs’ father sold the land bearing Sy.No.18 and executed the registered sale deed in favour of the husband of defendant No.2, defendants No.1 and 3 to 5. The plaintiffs’ father Puttachannaiahshetty died in 1984. After his demise, the plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule property and became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit land bearing Sy.No.19. Defendant No.3, filed an application to enter his name in respect of the suit schedule property. The Tahsildar, Belur, entered the name of defendant No.3 in the revenue records. Defendant No.3, taking undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record, sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8 under a registered sale deed dated 02.08.1985. Defendant Nos.6 to 8 are not the bonafide purchasers of the suit property for value without notice. It is also contended that defendant Nos.6 to 8 filed a suit in O.S.Nos.533/1995, 534/1995 and 535/1995. The plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale deed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8 after filing of said suits. Defendant No.3’s siblings also filed a suit in O.S.No.459/95 against defendant No.3 for partition in suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration.

3.3. Defendants filed a written statement admitting the execution of the registered sale deed dated 07.02.1962 in favour of the plaintiffs’ father, and possession of the property continued with defendants Nos.1 to 5 even after the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. It is contended that defendants have been in continuous possession of the suit property, over the statutory period and acquired the title of the same by way of adverse possession. Defendant No.3 submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Belur to enter the name of defendant No.3. The Tahsildar has passed the order to enter the name of defendant No.3 in the revenue records. Defendant No.3 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8 and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8. It is contended that the plaintiffs have no right to question the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 8, and they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and the plaintiffs are aware of all these circumstances, and the plaintiffs have suppress