To establish ownership, a plaintiff must prove lawful possession and boundaries through credible evidence, while appellate courts will defer to trial court findings unless they are unsupported by material facts.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.310/2012 that the suit Sy.No.5/4 totally measuring 2 acre 10 guntas. It was originally belongs to one Chennaiah Lakshmana and Chennarayappa. One Nagamma and her minor son Rangappa purchased 1 acre 5 guntas out of 2 acre 10 gunta under registered sale deed dated 19.12.1962. Thereafter, one Chowdaiah purchased 1 acre 5 guntas under registered sale deed dated 28.02.1982 from Nagamma and Rangappa. Then the said Chowdaiah converted the land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.5/4. In the year 1979 and 1983 Chowdaiah sold sites to the third parties and they are residing therein. It is also contended that after conversion, the eastern portion of 1 acre assigned as Sy.No.5/4A3 middle portion assigned as Sy.No.5/2A3 and its most western side measuring 5 guntas assigned and re-numbered as Sy.No.5/4A1 by the concerned survey authorities under Haddu basth phodi durasthi work. As such in the year 1993 this Sy.No.5/4A1 and Sy.No.5/4A3 lands are amalgamated to total extent of 1 acre 5 guntas. The defendant No.2 preferred an appeal against the said survey work before D.D.L.R, Tumakuru which is pending.

3. It is also contended that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.2 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. After his demise, they are in possession of the suit properties by changing revenue records in their names and out of the said total extent of 30 x 100 feet in the suit item No.2 the said Chowdappa has gifted the northern side measuring 30 x 100 feet to his sister Smt.Chowdamma under registered Gift deed dated 17.05.1995 by retaining item No.2 towards southern side. In this regard suit between C.Chowdappa and his vendors in O.S.No.304/1995 is pending before this Court.

4. It is also contended that the father of the defendant No.2 B.Rangappa was the owner of the land situated on the western side of the suit schedule properties and after his death, defendant No.2 has got created a layout plan up to the western side of the Badavanahalli Annappa Nayakanahalli road by cropping the suit item No.2 in order to knock off the property of plaintiffs. The defendants illegally collusion with the concerned panchayat created some documents without knowledge and notice of C.Chowdappa. The defendant No.2 has sold site No.4 in the said layout plan to the defendant No.1 illegally and thereby defendant No.2 has trying to alienate the site Nos.1 to 3 illegally to third person. Even during the lifetime of C.Chowdappa and after his demise present plaintiffs have given objections to the concerned panchayat authorities for their said illegal acts but panchayat has not taken any action against the illegal acts of the defendants. On the basis of illegal records defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 has appeared and filed written statement contending that plaintiffs are claiming falsely to an extent of East-West: 30 feet and North-South:10 feet within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and whatever the property mentioned in the western side the land of B.Rangappa is not correct because there is no space for the plaintiffs in between the Kanapanayakanahalli road the land of B.Rangappa and as detailed in the written statement filed by the defendant No.2. The land of D.Rangappa extend up to said K.P.Halli road and on its eastern side this defendant has purchased as site No.