To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 passed in RA No. 44 of 2011 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, and the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2011 passed in OS No. 13 of 2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Harihara.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.4 was defendant No.1.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration to declare that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and also sought for permanent injunction.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, one Anandaa Naik, son of Somla Naik, the Plaintiffs' father who died on 17.10.2007. Ananda Naik’s wife, during his lifetime had left him and the plaintiffs gone out of the family deserting him and the plaintiffs. Ananda Naik during his lifetime made a will dated 10.04.2007 bequeathing his property for succession after his death as per his desire. Mr.Ananda Naik himself was an advocate and himself has made the will bequeathing his properties as he wished. The plaintiffs have succeeded to the estate of the deceased Ananda Naik under a testamentary succession. The said will was executed when he was in a sound disposing state of mind, though he was suffering from cancer, and he passed away on 17.10.2007.

6. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased Ananda Naik. He appointed one Jaya Naik, his own younger brother, as a guardian and next friend of both persons and properties of the plaintiffs under the said will itself. Therefore, Jaya Naik has signed, verified and filed the plaint for and on behalf of the minor plaintiffs as their guardian and next friend.

7. Originally the suit schedule property was owned by Mazan Bi, wife of Chaman Sab and the said land was standing in her name till her death. After her death the property was transferred in the name of her son Fayaz. He got transferred the property in his name. Thereafter, he sold the same in favour of Ananda Naik, Govindraj and Iqbal Hussain for a valuable consideration of ₹2,75,000/- under the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1997. After that Govindaraj and Iqbal Hussain relinquished their right in favour of Ananda Naik regarding the suit schedule property on 22.05.1998 by executing a registered release deed. Thus, Ananda Nayak became the sole owner of the entire suit schedule property. Deceased Ananda Naik had filed a suit in O.S.No.116 of 1998 challenging the acquisition proceedings and after establishment of Court at Harihar, it was re-numbered as OS No.47 of 2004. In the said suit, the plaint was returned on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Ananda Naik aggrieved by the return of plaint, preferred a Civil Revision petition in CRP No. 379 of 2006, which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.03.2007 and confirmed the return of plaint. The plaintiffs being the legal representatives of the deceased Ananda Naik and the legatees under the will dated 10.04.2007 filed a writ petition in WP No. 8965 of 2008 for quashing the acquisition notification is