The burden of proof lies on the party claiming ownership; failure to provide satisfactory evidence leads to the dismissal of claims challenging established titles.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri Ramesh H E, learned counsel for Ravindra Prasad B, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri H.S.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendants in O.S No.277/2011 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. They suffered the decree of declaration and injunction in the said suit. Operative portion of the judgment passed in the suit reads as under:

“The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.

It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

Consequently, the defendants, their agents etc., are hereby restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.”

3. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an R.A No.32/2015 which was re-numbered as R.A No.75/2019 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

4. First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and thereafter, by the judgment dated 15.03.2021 dismissed the appeal concurring with the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

5. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for declaration and permanent injunction came to be filed in respect of landed property bearing Survey No.57/6B measuring 20 guntas situated at Vajarahalli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, bounded on the East by land of Kariyappa and Chikkathimmaiah, West by: land of Hanumaiah etc., North by: land of Channayappa and South by: land of Hombaiah @Yalavaiah hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

6. It is the contention of the plaintiff that land bearing Survey No.57/6 totally measuring 3 acres 11 guntas including 1 acre of kharab originally belonged to Kempamma, wife of Hanumaiah alias Helavaiah. Kempamma along with her minor son sold the said property in favour of Thimmakka, wife of Garuda Hanumaiah under registered sale dated 18.06.1947.Plaintiff is the grandson of said Thimmakka.

7. Plaintiff’s father by name Hombaiah had mortgaged land in Sy.No.57/6 in favour of one Venkataiah, Son of Hanumaiah, under the registered deed dated 23.09.1964 which was later redeemed on 17.01.1976. He had also mortgaged the same land in favour of said Venkataiah vide registered deed dated 28.05.1962. Thereafter Smt.Kalamma who was the wife of said Venkataiah and her children redeemed the same by registered deed dated 20.11.2004 in favour of the plaintiff.

8. Land has underwent ‘phodi’ proceedings and sub numbers were given. In such division effected between plaintiff and his brother Chikka Hombaiah, suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff and revenue entries were mutated in the name of the plaintiff. Plaintiff obtained loan from P.L.D Bank and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

9. It is further contended that the defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff, in collusion with the revenue authorities meddled with the revenue entries. Therefore, plaintiff had to file necessary appeal before the competent authority and matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry.

10. It is at that juncture, plaintiff found that there is some foul play, when defendants tried to interfere with the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.277/2011 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.

11. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance through their counsel and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto.

12. Defendants con