A plaintiff claiming ownership must prove title and ongoing possession; failure to respond to prior sales bars relief, highlighted by limitation law.

JUDGMENT :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

In this Regular Second Appeal, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 have challenged judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking declaration of ownership over the suit property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.15/3 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. However, subsequently, he got the plaint amended restricting his prayer to Southern half to an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas, by conceding the fact that the northern half of the said survey number was given by his father to the Panchayat for formation of sites. Plaintiff is tracing out his title to the suit property through his father Shantappa. He claimed that since the said survey number was very near to the village and consist of stony land, it is not cultivable. Therefore, plaintiff is grazing his cattle and also storing the agricultural equipments and there is a cattle shed in the said property. He has fenced the same with the stone pillars. He has alleged that recently the defendants in order to illegally occupy the suit schedule property have created documents and tried to interfere. Despite holding a Panchayat, the defendants did not stop their illegal activities. The Sale deed dated 30.09.1977 executed by the father of the plaintiff is behind his back and not binding on him and it is not acted upon.

4. Defendants have filed written statement, disputing that plaintiff is the owner in possession of suit property. He was never in possession and suit for declaration without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable. Plaintiff has given wrong boundaries and no property as described in the suit schedule is in existence. It is declined as a fragment land and it is not fit for cultivation. Plaintiff is in possession of only to an extent measuring 60 x 30 ft, which is standing in the name of one Shankar, the nephew of plaintiff. The defendants have denied that they are trying to illegally occupy valuable property of the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged one is false.

5. Inter-alia defendants have contended that since Sy.No.15/3 was declared as fragment land, father of plaintiff - Shantappa applied for conversion order. Since he could not fulfill the condition imposed for the conversion, out of southern half measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, Shantappa formed sites. He sold site No.1 through registered sale deed dated 29.09.1977 (Ex.D1) and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Similarly, defendant No.2 is the owner of site measuring 51 x 30 ft. Defendant No.3 has purchased plot No.4 measuring 130 x 60 ft from the father of plaintiff in the year 1984 and he is having a cowdung pit in the said site. The sketch produced by defendants clearly indicate that plaintiff is not at all in possession of any portion of Sy.No.15/3, except an extent measuring 60 x 30 ft standing in the name of his nephew Shankar. He is not entitled for any relief and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues.

7. At the trial on behalf of plaintiff, 2 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 and 2. Exs.P1 to 25 are marked.

8. On behalf of defendants, DWs-1 to 4 are examined and Exs.D1 to 30 are marked.

9. The trial court dismissed the suit.

10. Against the same, plaintiff filed Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court. It was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

11. Aggrieved by the judgment in