An individual can only convey as much land as they legally own, with revenue entries providing presumptive evidence but not definitive ownership against established deeds.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri.S.Dorai Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Archana Murthy P., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.A.Sampath, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Present appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.326/2009 which was confirmed in RA No.03/2018.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory injunction in respect of immovable property bearing Sy.No.78/1 measuring 26½ guntas situated at Heggadadevanapura, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru bounded on East by Sy.No.78/2, West by land of defendants, North by land belonging to Anjanappa, Ranganna and Byregowda and South by Sy.No.78/1 belongs to brother of plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

4.2. It is contended that land in Sy.No.78 of Heggadadevanapura totally measuring 4 acre 14 guntas at an undisputed point of time which is a Government land. Father of the plaintiff purchased the land to the extent of 30 guntas in the said land as per the sale deed dated 18.06.1940. Thereafter, land in Sy.No.78 was further sub-divided into 78/1 and 78/2. Property measuring 31 guntas assigned with Sy.No.78/2 and remaining extent of 3 acres 24 guntas assigned with 78/1.

4.3. Father of the plaintiff purchased an extent of 2 acres of the land in Sy.No.78/1 by registered sale deed dated 12.10.1949 and thereafter, he also purchased the land to the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.78/1 as per the sale deed dated 20.02.1950. Thus, only land to an extent of 24 guntas remained in Sy.No.78/1.

4.4. After the demise of the father of the plaintiff, plaintiff succeeded to the properties left behind by his father in which the plaintiff sold 1 acre 11 guntas in favour of one Veerabhadraiah and remaining 1 acre 29 guntas of land remained with him was spread over in two bits namely in 1 acre and 29 guntas respectively.

4.5. Insofar as those properties are concerned, defendant is not asserting any rights over the bit of the land measuring 29 guntas. However, defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.78/1 as the same is abutting to the land of the defendants.

4.6. Out of those properties, brother of the plaintiff has taken 13½ guntas of the land in Sy.No.78/1 and remaining 26½ guntas in Sy.No.78/1 fell into the share of the plaintiff. The property of 26½ guntas is the subject matter of the suit.

4.7. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendants had purchased 24 guntas in Sy.No.78/1 measuring 135 feet x 40 yards under the sale deed dated 14.06.1950. Defendants are attempting to claim large extent of land though an extent of 24 guntas alone was purchased under the sale deed dated 14.06.1950. Therefore, suit is filed claiming relief of declaration and injunction.

5. Upon receipt of suit summons, defendants appeared before the Trial Court and denied the plaint averments in toto.

6. They contend that defendants having purchased the property to the extent of 135 feet x 40 yards which would work out to about 5,400 yards equivalent to about 1.01 acres of the land were in enjoyment of the same.

7. They also contend that plaintiff having sold his entire property, wants to claim the possession over the property belonging to the defendants as there is a discrepancy in the measurement in the sale deeds of plaintiff and the defendants.

8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, Trial Court raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties