In property disputes, a party asserting title must substantiate claims with documented evidence, and where prior adverse rulings exist, the new claim is untenable.

JUDGMENT :

M G UMA, J.

The plaintiff in OS.No.234/1994 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sira (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) is impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2002 dismissing the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction, with costs and the judgment dated 16.07.2009 passed in RA No.78/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Sira (hereinafter referred to 'the First Appellate Court' for short), dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.234/1994 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction, restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land situated at Yeliyur village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk bearing Sy.No.306, Khata No.275, measuring 4 acres 18 guntas with boundaries mentioned therein. ('the schedule property' for short). It is stated by the plaintiff that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. It was belonging to his father, late Kare Erappa S/o Bomma Naika. The khata was standing in his name and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of his father, the plaintiff became the owner. Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 tried to interfere with the schedule property, laying false claim, even during the lifetime of Kare Erappa, the father of the plaintiff. Father of the plaintiff with an intention to give quietus to the false claim made by the defendants, agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to defendant No.1, who in turn, agreed to sell all her rights, title and interest in the suit schedule property in favour of the father of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the same, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 05.05.1983 in favour of the plaintiff's father relinquishing all her right, title and interest and thereby, the father of the plaintiff became the absolute owner in possession of the property.

4. It is stated that even though the document is styled as relinquishment deed, the recitals in the same discloses that it is a sale deed executed by defendant No.1 by accepting the valuable consideration of Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the khata was standing in the name of father of the plaintiff, since from 1987 to 1988 and he was paying the revenue. The father of the plaintiff died about three months before filing the suit, leaving behind the plaintiff as his legal representative. Thus, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. It is stated that the defendants started to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with an intention to take forcible possession and therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction against the defendants.

6. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement. The contentions taken by the plaintiff regarding ownership of the property by his father being in possession and enjoyment of the same as khatedar are all denied. It is also denied that defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with one another are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoym