A plea of adverse possession requires the claimant to acknowledge the ownership of the true owner while asserting a claim of possession, which was not established in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

The captioned appeal is by the defendant challenging the eviction decree wherein the defendant is directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property within three months from the date of the order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for ejectment and recovery of possession in respect of a residential property constructed on Site No.12, situated in Survey No.96 of Amruthahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli. The plaintiff, who is presently residing in the United States of America, purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.02.1994 executed by one Narasima Raju and M. Sreeramulu. The plaintiff contends that with the intention of constructing a residential house on the said property, he executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 23.05.2007 in favour of the defendant, who is his sister-in-law. Upon completion of the construction, the plaintiff, out of goodwill and family ties, permitted the defendant to reside in the house, thereby placing her in permissive possession of the suit schedule property.

4. The plaintiff further contends that as he intended to return to India and occupy the residential premises, he requested the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule property. However, the defendant refused to comply with the request. Consequently, the plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings by filing HRC No.133/2012. Upon legal advice, it was realised that the defendant had not been inducted under a lease agreement, and as such, the eviction petition was withdrawn. The plaintiff has now filed the present suit seeking recovery of possession based on the defendant’s permissive occupation.

5. Pursuant to service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed her written statement, wherein she denied all material averments made in the plaint. The defendant specifically denied the plaintiff's claim of ownership and permissive possession. On the contrary, the defendant has asserted that she is in occupation of the suit schedule property in her own right as the absolute owner and has further set up a plea of title by way of adverse possession.

6. Based on rival pleadings, trial Court framed the following issues:

" 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is residing in permissive possessing over the Suit Property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has terminated permissive possession of the defendant by issuing notice to the defendant and also terminated the power of attorney given to the defendant?

3. Whether the defendant proves that suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid insufficient?

4. Whether the defendant proves that she is the absolute owner and in possession over the suit schedule property?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?

6. What order or decree?"

7. Plaintiff and defendant were permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Plaintiff adduced oral evidence through his brother, who is examined as P.W.1 and produced in all 14 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to 14. Defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and her son was examined as D.W.2 and they produced in all 22 documents which