A plaintiff must independently establish ownership to succeed in a property claim; mere possession is insufficient without clear evidence of title.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

Challenging common judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007 passed by II Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru, in RA no.212/2004 and RA no.464/2004, these appeals are filed. As they are on common facts and grounds, reference would also be common.

2. Brief facts as stated are, appellant was plaintiff in OS no.20/1989 (Old no.201/1981) filed for declaration that plaintiff was absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of property bearing Sy.no.69/1, measuring 3 Acres 10 guntas, situated at Akkiramapura village, Holavanahalli Hobli, Koratagere Taluk (referred to as 'suit property') and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property.

3. In plaint, it was stated, plaintiff succeeded to suit property belonging to her husband - Kalandersab, after his death. It was stated, defendants without any manner of right or possession over suit property, began interfering with her possession and enjoyment of same. Hence, suit was filed.

4. On appearance, defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments. They denied plaintiff was owner of suit property. They contended, suit property was exclusive property of defendant no.1, which he got in family division. Therefore, plaintiff did not have any right. It was stated defendant no.1 having half share, while Khasim Khan (defendant no.6) and Hussain Khan @ Sabu Sab had 1/4^th share in bore-well and exclusive ownership in IP-Set bearing no.A.R.P.153, whereas, defendant no.6 and Hussain Khan had half share in IP Set bearing no.A.R.P.48. And except 17 guntas belonging to defendant no.6, defendant no.1 was owner of remaining extent in Sy.no.69. It was specifically contended, description as well as boundaries of suit property was incorrect. It was stated plaintiff and her children viz., Hussain Khan and Hameed were enjoying property bearing Sy.no.51 of Akkiramapura village as owner. Therefore, plaintiff's claim was without basis and sought dismissal of suit.

5. Said averments were denied by plaintiff in his rejoinder statement.

6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property belonged to her husband and after his death she is the owner of the same?

2. Is plaintiff in lawful possession of the suit property?

3. Is plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought?

4. What order or decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether the defendant no.1 proves that the suit property belongs to him exclusively and that he has got the same in the family division?

2. Whether the first defendant further proves that he is having half share in he well in Sy.No.69?

3. Whether the first defendant further proves that one Khasim Khan is having 0-17 guntas of land in suit Sy.No.?

4. Whether the first defendant proves that the boundaries given to the suit property are wrong?

7. In trial, SPA holder of plaintiff and two others deposed as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P15. In rebuttal, defendants no.1, 6 and five others deposed as DWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D43.

8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1, additional issues no.1 to 4 in negative, issue no.2 in affirma