The courts held that failure to prove actual possession undermines ownership claims, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence in legal proceedings concerning property rights.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri.Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the respondent which is the Erehalli Mandal Panchayath/Group Panchayat, Erehalli village, Bhadravathi, Shivamogga District in respect of the property which is a vacant site bearing No.10 said to have been carved in Sy.No.1 of Koralakoppa, Bhadravathi Taluk measuring 23 feet x 54 feet bounded on East by Government School, West by house of Mohammed Kata, North by Shivani Road and South by property of Mandal Panchayath.

-

3. Suit on contest, came to be dismissed by the Trial Court inter alia holding that plaintiff failed to prove that he is in lawful possession of the suit property.

4. Trial Court also appreciated that while entertaining the suit against the Governmental authority, apart from parameters namely lawful possession and interference, public interest or public policy is also to be taken note of as is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Limited and Others , AIR 1999 SC 393 and recorded a categorical finding that plaintiff failed to prove the possession over the suit property.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.25/2023.

6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the factual aspects and the position of law governing the lis on hand, dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the dismissal of the suit.

-

7. While so doing, First Appellate Court not only reappreciated the material evidence but also took into consideration the admission made by P.W.1 wherein he has specifically answered that in respect of the suit property, there was a Government school and since the building was a very old building, the same was demolished and construction of the new school has been taken up.

8. First Appellate Court also reappreciated the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 wherein P.W.2 has stated that he does not know how the title to the suit site is derived to Sheshamma who is the mother of the plaintiff. He has stated that he has seen the suit site about 10 to 12 years earlier to filing of the suit.

-

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed the present appeal on following grounds and raising following substantial questions of law:

GROUNDS

 “The Hon'ble First Appellate Court without assigning valid reasons, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating material evidence on record has wrongly confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, Hence, the impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and trial court are perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside.

 The Hon'ble Lower courts failed to consider that the suit schedule property was granted on upset price to the mother of the Appellant on 20.07.1970 by then chairman of Antheregange, group panchayath after collecting upset price of Rs.40/- and issued Hakku Patra as per document at Ex.P1 and thereafter Khatha was transfer in her name in Patta Book as per Ex.P4 and she had paid the tax to the said Panchayath in respect of suit Schedule property as Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Exp.P7 to 13 and she obtained licence for construction from the said Antharagange mandal panchayath on 18.08.1984 and 22.07.1988 as EX.P 5 and 6. The Mother of Appellant was the absolute owner and in possession over the suit schedule property and after her death, appellant's father had executed the registered will at EX.P18, wherein bequeathed all his properties al