A plaintiff cannot claim ownership without possession if a prior sale agreement exists, particularly when the claim is barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2024, passed in R.A.No.39/2024, by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi and confirm the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2024, passed in O.S.No.239/2019, by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1/caveator and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, appellants herein have filed a suit in O.S.No.239/2019 against respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of 2 acres 16 guntas + 2 acres 16 guntas + 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No.314 out of 15 acres 5 guntas situated at Harasoor village, Taluk and District Kalaburagi.

4. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that they purchased the suit schedule properties under three different sale deeds (Exs.P.1 to P.3) from defendant No.1 under the scheme of the Government of Karnataka, SC/ST Development Corporation ‘Bhoo Vadetana’. The plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of the lands to the extent of land purchased by them from the date of the sale deeds. The plaintiffs contend that they could not verify the record of rights of suit lands and they were under the notion that their names have been entered in the record of rights as per the registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs contend that they came to know the fact when defendant No.2 started approaching the suit lands on the ground that he has purchased the lands from defendant No.1. They contend that defendant No.2 started obstructing the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit lands and denied their titles and therefore they filed the suit for declaration. The plaintiffs contend that defendant No.1 played mischief, committed fraud and cheated the plaintiffs by executing documents to various persons including defendant No.2 without any title. They contend that defendant No.1 had no right to alienate or transfer the suit properties. The transactions between defendant Nos.1 and 2 are void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree obtained by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.178/2007, including the lands of the plaintiffs is totally wrong, illegal and against the law and not binding on the plaintiffs.

5. Defendant No.1 in the suit remained ex parte. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and contended that the suit is not maintainable. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.178/2007 dated 25.02.2009 has been challenged after lapse of eleven years and suit is barred by limitation. The sale deed has been executed by the Court Commissioner under document dated 15.11.2010 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of entire property bearing Sy.No.314 measuring 15 acres 05 guntas. Defendant No.2 has been put in possession by the Court bailiff in E.P.No.161/2013. Prior to execution of decree in O.S.No.178/2007, the plaintiffs have not prayed for possession. Therefore, the suit for mere declaration without possession is not maintainable. They contend that defendant No.2 has entered into sale agreement with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed registered sale agreement dated 19.06.2004 agreeing to sell entire 15 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.314 of Harasoor village in favour of defendant No.2. As defendant No.1 has not executed sale deed pursuant to the said registered sale agreement, defendant No.2 filed O.S.No.178/2007 and said suit came to be decreed. Defendant No.1 filed R.A.No.106/2008 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Thereafter, O.S.No.178/2007 was re-opene