Documentary evidence prevails over oral claims in property disputes; adverse possession must be substantiated by valid evidence.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. This second appeal is filed against the divergent finding. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the same is reversed by the First Appellate Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction is that he is the owner of the property which is morefully described in the suit schedule i.e., vacant site bearing Sl.No.242, property No.105/7 at Nelavagilu Village Grama Panchayath, Shikaripura Taluk measuring 15 x 180 feet with boundary description as given in the schedule. It is contented that plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said property initially belonged to the joint family and it is an ancestral property of the plaintiff in the name of his father Sri Shivappa Marer. The said Shivappa Marer is no more and after the death of Shivappa Marer, his wife's name i.e., Smt. Susheelamma is entered in the revenue records. When such being the material, the consent agreement has taken place in the family in which the plaintiff got the suit property for his share and became the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Thus, all the revenue entries are mutated in his name under M.R.No.36/1996-97 dated 09.04.1996. He has constructed one tent house (Kottige Mane) in the suit schedule property for agricultural purpose and enjoying the suit schedule property by paying kandayam to the panchayath authority from time to time. That on 28.07.2013, the defendant along with his henchmen came to the suit schedule property and tried to encroach the same and the same was resisted. Hence, prayed the Court to grant the relief of permanent injunction.

4. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that averments made in the plaint is false. It is contended that originally, the property was owned and possessed by Mukappa Marer. The said Mukappa Marer had one daughter by name Basamma and a son Basetyappa. It is contented that Shivappa Marer had two wives. The said Shivappa Marer had one daughter by name Kenchamma through his first wife and she also died issueless in her husband's home. The plaintiff as well as Rajappa are the sons of Shivappa Marer through his second wife Susheelamma. After the death of Shivappa Marer, his second wife Susheelamma went with one Goddanakoppada Hanumanthappa about 39 years back and settled at Chattanahalli Village, Honnali Taluk and they were leading their life as a husband and wife. The said Susheelamma took her sons i.e., plaintiff and his brother Rajappa along with her and lived in Chettanahalli Village itself and still they are living in the said village. Therefore, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property nor constructed the cattle shed. It is contented that his sister Kamalamma married one Basetyappa of Nelavagilu Village and in the said wedlock, one daughter was born to them and she was Radhamma and she died at the age of 2 years old. As such, the said Kamalamma took him to look after the agricultural work at the age of 12 years old. Since then, she is the only daughter and she performed her marriage with him and kept him as a illoten son-in-law. After his marriage, he is living with his wife’s family and enjoying the suit schedule property along with other properties.

5. It is contended that on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, his wife’s another property is situated, wherein they are living in the said house at present. It is contended tha