An unregistered sale deed does not convey ownership of property, and adverse possession cannot be claimed without a valid title established through registration.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. These three Regular Second Appeals arise out of judgments dated 09.10.2014 passed in R.A.Nos.21/2013 and 19/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli and the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.24/1999 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants in RSA No.1759/2014 was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from his vendor - Uttangi Kotrappa under an unregistered sale deed dated 07.04.1971. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff’s husband was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the demise of her husband, the plaintiff succeeded to the suit schedule property and came in possession of the suit schedule property.

(ii) It is contended that the plaintiff is paying the land revenue of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff perfected her title through adverse possession. It is contended that the plaintiff lodged a complaint at Itagi police station and a criminal case was registered against the defendants in C.C.No.202/1998. It is contended that the defendants attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title 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 the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of the defendants. The defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendants are paying the land revenue to the Government and the revenue records stand in the name of the defendants. It is contended that Tahasildar, Harapanahhali passed an order to change the Khatha in the name of the defendants. The plaintiff has not challenged the order passed by the Tahasildar, Harapanahalli and it is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues.

6. The plaintiff to substantiate her case, examined her GPA holder as PW.1, examined four witnesses as PWs.2 to 5 and marked 07 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1, examined three witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and marked 25 documents as Exs.D1 to D25. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the negative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 partly affirmative and issue No.5 as per the final order.

7. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed, the relief of declaration of her title was dismissed and the relief of perpetual injunction was granted vide judgment dated 15.02.2013. The plaintiff aggrieved by the dismissal of suit for declaration of her title preferred an appeal in R.A.No.21/2013. The defendants also being aggrieved by the judgment and decree granting perpetual injunction, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.19/2023. The First Appellate Court on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence