The court affirmed that newly presented evidence can establish property title, overriding previous rejections; thus, a relinquishment deed can validate claims even if originally dismissed due to technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. None appeared for the respondents.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.127/1998 is before this Court in second appeal assailing the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.3/2006, by which the plaintiff was non-suited.

4. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be summarized as below:

a. The plaintiff contended that he is absolute owner of the suit schedule property, which is the land situated at Kudligi in Survey No.712B measuring 1 acre 14 cents bounded by Survey No.713 on the east, 712 on the west, stream on the north and a road on the south. It was urged by the plaintiff that he has purchased the same from its previous owner Veeranagouda and it has been mutated in the name of the plaintiff and has paid land revenue also.

b. It is contended that the defendant is no way concerned to the suit schedule property and somewhere in the year 1986-87, the defendant colluded with the revenue officers and got his name entered in the record of rights. c. The defendant's version was that his father had purchased it from one Maribasavanagouda in the year 1938. But since the year 1938, the name of the defendant was not mutated till the year 1988 and even on the date of filing of the suit the defendant was not in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff contended that he is the rightful owner and holder of title of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff’s possession was acknowledged by the Tahsildar in his reports dated 18.08.1995 and 22.07.1997.

d. It was alleged that the defendant is unnecessarily disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff by denying the title and therefore, there was a cause of action for filing of the present suit and as such, the plaintiff approached the Trial Court seeking a decree of declaration of title and consequential injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

5. In response to the suit summons issued to the defendants, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement.

a. The defendant denied the plaint averments and requested that the plaintiff be put to proof of all the averments made in the plaint. The defendant contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the same and he had inherited the same from his late father, who had purchased an extent of 0.57 acres on 04.06.1938 for a consideration of Rs.40/- under a registered sale deed from one Maribasavanagouda. The remaining 0.57 acres was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the father of the defendant for more than 60 years without interference by anyone.

b. The defendant further contended that about 2 years back, the father of the defendant died and till then, his father was in a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had filed an application before the revenue authorities to cancel the name of the father of the defendant in the revenue records and after enquiry, the same came to be dismissed. The plaintiff initiated the appeal proceedings before the Tahsildar and ultimately, it culminated before the Assistant Commissioner in dismissal. The defendant contended that the title of the plaintiff is not established and he has not disclosed as to how the plaintiff obtained the title over the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.

6. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 died and hi