Appellate courts must independently assess evidence and strictly comply with procedural mandates to ensure just decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S.Kinagi, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013, passed in R.A.No.345/2012 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2012 passed in O.s.No.187/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff.

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

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his family members are the absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that originally, the said property was owned and possessed by Chikkamuniswamy @ Valmiki S/o Muniyappa, who is his ancestor and he had a son by name Munimarappa. Munimarappa had three sons by name Dodda Anjinappa, Marappa (plaintiff) and Chikka Anjinappa. It is contended that Chikkamuniswamy @ Valimiki had hypothecated the suit property and the land bearing Sy.Nos.74 in favour of Hanumantharayappa S/o. Chennappa for a sum of Rs.50/- vide Adhara Patra executed on 02.12.1994 and the same was redeemed. However, the possession was not delivered to the said Hanumantharayappa.

It is contended that there is no conveyance regarding the suit schedule property and since then they have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that land bearing Sy.No.73/1 belonged to Chikkamuniswamy @ Valmiki S/o. Muniyappa and he hypothecated the same and has not taken the possession back. It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No.60 and 73/1 of Adinarayana Hosahalli village were put in public auction by the Revenue Department in 1937-38 for non- payment of land revenue and the public auction was held on 27.04.1938. In the public auction Hanumantharayappa S/o. Muniyappa became the successful bidder and his name found a place in the revenue records and he alienated the suit schedule property and the land in Sy.No.60 in favour of Bachchanna S/o Hanumantharayappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.10.1939. By virtue of the registered sale deed the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant No.2 i.e., Bachchanna became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. After the death of Bachchcanna, defendants are in possession of the suit property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

ISSUES

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2. Whether plaintiff proves the illegal interference caused by the defendants over the suit schedule property?

3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are illegally trying to alienate the suit schedule property?

4. Whether s