The courts determined that undocumented claims to adverse possession were insufficient against documented evidence of eviction and title, emphasizing the necessity of continuous possession for claim validity.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri.Skanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Raghunath M. D., learned counsel for appellant and Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The present second appeal is filed questioning the validity of the judgments passed in O.S.No.1919/2008 and RA No.67/2018 whereby the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that he has perfected the title over suit ‘B’ schedule property and order of permanent injunction came to be dismissed.

3. Suit ‘B’ schedule property reads as under:

5 Acres of land in re-Sy No.11 Kyalsanahalli, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk bounded on:

East by: Portion of land in Sy. No.11

West by: Road

North by: Muniramaiah’s land

South by: Property of MR Hegde in block No.7

-

4. Plaintiff laid a claim in the suit by contending that he is the owner of suit ‘A’ schedule property by way of grant from the Government. It is his case that based on the title in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property, he started enjoying suit ‘B’ schedule property for a period of 26 years continuously without any hindrance. Therefore, defendants are to be restrained from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by declaring that he is the owner by adverse possession in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ property as well.

5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and denied the case of the plaintiff and stated that before the grant of land to the defendants, plaintiff no doubt illegally occupied two acres of the land in suit ‘B’ schedule property. But he has been evicted by the revenue authorities to the extent of two acres. Thereafter, adding three more acres and conducting survey, five acres of land in Sy.No.11, New No.90 was granted in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6.

-

6. They also contended that the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is thus not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues and also an additional issue with regard to the title to the suit property to be established by the defendants, recorded the evidence of the parties and on cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by answering issues against the plaintiff and additional issue in favour of the defendants.

8. While so recording the finding, learned Trial Judge took into consideration the probative value of the documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. Ex.D.4 which is the grant certificate in favour of defendants has been taken into consideration where under there is a clear mention that plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation to the extent of two acres of the land in Sy.No.11 of Kylsanhalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and he was evicted from two acres of the property and thereafter, adding 3 more acres, grant was made in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. Admittedly, two acres of the land was belonging to Sri.S.S.Hegde earlier.

-

9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.67/2018.

10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, reappreciated the factual aspects and material evidence placed on record in the light of the appeal grounds and dismissal the appeal by recording a categorical finding that even as per Exs.P.5 to P.7 which are the prime documents on which the plaintiff banked upon, did not make out a case that he was in adverse possession of entire suit ‘B’ schedule property.

-

11. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court on the following grounds:

- Both the Courts below ought to have seen that the plaintiff has proved his case by producing the documents and proved that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'B' property

- Both the Courts below ought to have seen that the defendants pleaded that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the prop