In property suits, plaintiffs must present definitive documentation of title; tax records are insufficient for establishing ownership.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 in R.A.No.32/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hanagal (for short “the First Appellate Court”, setting aside the judgment and the decree dated 16.10.2012 in O.S.No.99/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal (for short “the Trial Court”), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was belonged to their father-Goususab Kirawadi, and the father of the plaintiffs had permitted the father of the defendants to reside in the suit schedule property on permissive basis and as the father of the plaintiff died long ago and as such the plaintiffs made claim for the suit schedule property, however, the same was denied by the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendants have illegally entered their names in the occupants column in respect of the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.99/2008 before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration of title and possession.

3.1. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments.

3.2. It is the specific case of the defendants that one Mardansab, who was the grandfather of the defendants, was the original owner of the property in question and he had two sons viz., Imamsab and Madarsab. Therefore, it is the case of the defendants that after the demise of their father, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly, denied the averments made in the plaint that the defendants were in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and as such sought for dismissal of the suit.

3.3. Based on pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 19 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Defendants have examined one witness as DW1 and got marked 18 documents and same were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D18.

3.4. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment dated 16.10.2012 decreed the suit and as such directed the defendants to handover possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.32/2012 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07.03.2014 allowed the appeal and as such, set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.99/2008 and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Sri. S. N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

5. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court after appreciating the material on record has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and same was not considered by the First Appellate Court in the right perspective despite the fact that the defendants were in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and further, he contended that, the plaintiffs have established their right over the suit schedule property by producing Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and same has not been considered by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.

6. The respondents are served but remained absent.

7. Having taken note of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and on careful examinat