Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(a) to (c) and 2.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit schedule property and he has purchased the same from defendant No.1's husband Jula Narasimhaiah and his sons under a registered sale dated 26.01.1980. After the purchase, the khatha and pahani was mutated in his name and he was in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff when he was in joint family with his brother and thereafter by virtue of a partition between himself and his brothers, the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of the plaintiff as per M.R.No.18/1998-99. The said partition was mutated in the revenue records, but the Village Accountant has not written the name of the plaintiff in khatha and pahani. The plaintiff being innocent has also not verified the said fact for all these years. The defendant No.1’s husband Jula Narasimhaiah and his brother Ramappa originally had larger extent of land in Sy.No.81 and they have sold large extent of other land to various persons. When things stood thus, the defendants have illegally obtained the khatha and pahani for an extent of 4 acres and 5 guntas and 3 acres in their name as per M.R.No.19/1994-95 and M.R.No.48/2007-08. Taking the advantage of such legal entries, the defendants are trying to deny the title of the plaintiff. Hence, filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the written statement denying the very execution of the said deed and contended that originally Sy.No.81 of Hosadurga Village was a Government inam land which was granted in favour of husband of defendant No.1 Jula Narasimhaiah. The said Jula Narasimhaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 7 acres 5 guntas and about 16 years back, he passed away leaving behind his wife and children. After the death of Jula Narasimhaiah, the defendants being the legal heirs have acquired and continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property and they are the owners of the property. Thereafter, by virtue of the application made by the defendants, the revenue authorities have effected the mutation, khatha and pahani and other revenue documents in the name of defendant No.1 to the total extent. As such, the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 26.01.1980 as contended?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the interference caused by the defendants to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought as prayed?

4. What order or decree?

6. In order to substantiate the contention, the legal representative of the plaintiff, one Sri T.R. Balasubramanyam entered into the witness box and examined himself as P.W.1 and examined two witnesses on his behalf as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and has produced Exs.P.1 to 23. The defendant No.2 examined himself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the d