Possession of property relies on clear evidence and prior grants must establish rightful owner; failure to prove boundaries and title leads to dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Srikanth R.M., learned counsel appearing on behalf Sri. G.S. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The defendants are the appellants in the second appeal challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.280/2015, confirmed in R.A.No.25/2021, whereby suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction came to be decreed with costs.

3. The facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the following property, hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property:

“Land bearing Survey number 19/2P measuring 04 Acres including karab out of which 3 acre 34 guntas situated at Rs.3.93 paisa, situated at Muchaveeranahalli, hagalavadi Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, bounded by : -

East : Land of S.No.18, Now Road and S.No.18

West : Land of S.No.37, Now Krishnamurthy

North : Land of Block No.1, Now land of Doddamallayya and Lakshmamma S.No.19/3 P

South : land of Manchaladoregadi

3.2 The plaintiff contended that the suit property originally was a government land and it was granted in favour of the plaintiff in LNDCR (NC) 207/1970-71 on 30.07.1971 and from the date of grant, plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by mutating the revenue entries and by paying taxes.

3.3 It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendants being utter strangers started interfering with the suit property and therefore, a suit came to be filed.

4. Upon receipt of the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed statement denying the plaint averments.

5. It is further contended by defendants Nos.2 and 3 that they are the children of defendant No.1 and land in Sy.No.19/P3 measuring 3 acres situated in Muchaveeranahalli was granted in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 namely Narasaiah on 23.01.1982 and after his death, defendants have succeeded to the said property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and as such, claim of the plaintiff is to be rejected and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The learned Trial Judge after raising the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property by virtue of the grant order referred to supra.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.27/2021.

8. Learned First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material on record factually and legally, dismissed the appeal of the defendants confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, appellants are before this court in this second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law:

“GROUNDS

The Judgment and Decree of the Trial court & Appellate court is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The plaintiff has not proved the possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule property; the property has not been duly identified and there is no clarity in the identification of the property. Hence, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial court & 1st Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

The 1st Appellate court & the Trial Court have failed to appreciate the evidence of DW-1 & evidence of independent witness, examined as DW-2 and has further failed t