To establish adverse possession, one must demonstrate continuous and hostile possession against the true owner with intent to dispossess, which was not proven in this case.

JUDGMENT :

C M JOSHI, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. by the plaintiff assailing the concurrent finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.7/2003 dated 08.02.2006 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.37/2006 dated 08.09.2009.

2. The factual matrix that is necessary for the purpose of this appeal is as below:

i) The plaintiff filed suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property by adverse possession having enjoyed it for more than 73 years since from the lifetime of his grandfather and sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit schedule property and thereby interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It was stated that his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the year 1930 and he died in 1949. Thereafter the possession and enjoyment continued with the father of the appellants, till he died and thereafter the possession is continued with the appellants. It is contended that everyone including the defendants are in the knowledge that the plaintiff is cultivating and raising crops in the suit schedule property, irrigating the land through the well situated in it. During the year 1964-65 the plaintiff had dug a well in the suit land by obtaining loan from the government through Block Development Officer (BDO). A pump house was also built and since the year 1966, the same is being used without anybody's interference. Land revenue for occupancy was also paid by the father of the plaintiff and by the plaintiff.

ii) It is also the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property which is Sy.No.562/B has been assigned as a town survey number recently. But however, the enjoyment and possession continued with the appellant.

iii) It was learnt by the appellant that the respondents are trying to assign the schedule land to others. A suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.686/1991 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ballari, for injunction which came to be decreed.

iv) It was further contended that an application came to be filed by the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari to regularize his unauthorized occupation for more than 73 years. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 16.11.2002 against which an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Ballari. In the meanwhile, defendant No.2 issued a notice calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property and held a threat to the possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.

3. On service of summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending as below:

(i) The defendants denied the case of the appellant. Inter alia they contended that they are the owners in possession of the suit land and thereby denied the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

(ii) They admitted that O.S.No.686/1991 was filed by the plaintiff, and the same came to be decreed. They also admitted that an application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner for regularization of the possession and it was dismissed and that a notice was issued by the defendants on 07.12.2002 to the plaintiff to vacate the suit land. It is contended that the suit land is in the vicinity of the Municipal limits of Ballari and has been assigned a town Sy.No.655 as per the notification dated 19.03.1991 and therefore, the regularization of such lands coming within the limits of town municipality is impermissible. Therefore, they contended that the ingredients that are necessary for claiming adverse possession are not available and as such they sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court.

“ISSUES

1. Does plaintiff prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit property?

2. Does plaintiff further prove his lawful pos