The court held that revenue records can establish possessory title if they show consistent family lineage, despite the lack of formal title deeds.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

1. This regular second appeal is by the defendants in O.S. No.203/2011, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed in R.A. No.85/2019 on the file of the First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari (for short “the First Appellate Court”), by which the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs- respondents herein had set aside the judgement and decree dated 29.07.2015 passed in O.S. No.203/2011 on the file o the II-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, (for short “the trial Court”) and decreed the suit, as prayed for.

2. The above suit in O.S. No.203/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein for the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.8/1 measuring 5 acres situated in Somalapura Village in Ballari Taluka (for short “the suit property”). It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Smt. Siddamma wife of Shri Ramappa was the Pattadar and the owner of the plaint schedule property, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same during her life time. That the said Smt. Siddamma and Ramappa had a daughter by name Smt. Maremma, who was married to one Shri Nadivi Mudukappa. That the plaintiffs are children of said Maremma and Nadivi Mudukappa.

3. That the grandfather of the plaintiffs passed away on 08.04.1984. Smt. Siddamma, the grandmother of the plaintiffs passed away intestate on 09.09.1999. The mother of the plaintiffs namely Smt. Mareamma had predeceased her parents. Thus, after the demise of Smt. Siddamma, plaintiffs being the grandchildren inherited the property and became the absolute owner thereof.

4. That on 25.10.2010, the plaintiffs applied for certified copy of the record of rights of the plaint schedule property and learnt that the defendant No.1 had obtained mutation of her name in the revenue records and thereafter the plaint schedule property mutated in the names of defendant Nos.2 to 5. That the mutation of the names of defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the revenue records was obtained playing fraud on the revenue authorities without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. The said mutation is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have no right, title and interest over the suit property and as the same originally belonged to their grandmother i.e., Siddamma wife of Ramappa. The mother of the plaintiffs namely Mareamma being the only daughter of Siddamma and Ramappa and the plaintiffs being her children are the only legal representatives to succeed to the estate. Hence, the suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession.

5. The defendants filed written statement contending that the land bearing Sy.No.8 totally measuring 9.80 acres of Somlapur village originally belonged to one Bellary Nagappa; that an extent of 4.80 acres had fallen to the share of his elder son, Bellary Basanna, who is no more.

The said extent of 4.80 acres of land was standing in the name of Nellamma, who is none other than the daughter- in-law of late Shri Bellary Basanna. The remaining extent of land measuring 5 acres had fallen to the share of Bellary Ramanna, another son of Bellary Nagappa. The said Bellary Ramanna was cultivating the suit land personally till his demise. After his demise, defendant No.1, who is none other than the wife of Bellary Ramanna was personally cultivating the said land. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and the said Bellary Ramanna. Thus, it is contended that they have inherite