Possession and tax payments over time can support claims of adverse possession and contractual rights, requiring courts to consider all relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. These matters are listed for admission along with the IAs.

2. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Along with the appeal in R.S.A.No.2211/2023, I.A.No.1/2024 is also filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission of this Court to consider the additional evidence. The counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said appeal filed objections to the said application.

4. These two second appeals are arising out of the common judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court is that the Trial Court rejected the suit only on the ground that adverse possession is not proved and no pleading with regard to the part performance of the contract. The counsel for the appellants filed the synopsis stating that the relief is prayed for the declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 in respective suits are null and void and not binding on the rights, uninterrupted settled possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and to declare that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possession and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The counsel further contend that the suit schedule property measures 325x500 feet and the same belongs to the Mahabala Sastry and during lifetime of Mahabala Sastry and father of the plaintiffs, they had entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.02.1962 and possession was handed over on the date of sale agreement and the entire sale consideration was also paid. But Mahabala Sastry postponed the execution of the sale deed on one or the other pretext. After the death of Mahabala Sastry, the legal representative did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Though the demand register stood in the name of Mahabala Sastry, the possession and enjoyment column showed the name of the father of the plaintiffs throughout from the date of agreement of sale. The resolution was passed on 27.05.1988 mutating the name of the plaintiffs’ father i.e., Palakshappa Gowda and after the death of the father of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property and they were paying tax to the competent authority and they are in continued the uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property for the last 4 decades.

5. The counsel also would vehemently contend that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have fabricated and manipulated the previous documents and succeeded to mutate their names in the revenue records by creating the measurement as per their convenience and obtained numbers as 170/1 and 170/2. Thereafter, they created the sale deed in the year 2010. On the strength of the sale deed, tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and hence, the present suit is filed.

6. The counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to notice of this Court to the written statement filed by the defendants denying the averments of the plaint and also disputed the execution of the unregistered agreement of sale. It is also contended that the said agreement was not enforced for a period of 49 years and plaintiffs have approached the Court belatedly and contend that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The counsel also would vehemently contend that other defences were also taken with regard to the stamp duty and also the non-joinder of necess