Adverse possession requires stringent proof of uninterrupted and adverse use; plaintiffs failed to establish necessary elements leading to dismissal of their claim.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

On 12.11.2025, when this matter was listed for admission, this Court elaborately heard the matter and when this Court about to dictate the order, at that juncture, the counsel appearing for the appellants seeks 10 days time to negotiate the matter with the respondents. Hence, this Court granted time. Today, the counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants made an attempt to negotiate the matter with the respondents and the counsel for the respondents submits that parties are not in good terms and they are agitating this matter from 2009 and almost about 16 years has been elapsed and no chances of settlement. Hence, this Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is mainly contented that they have put up a Mangalore titled house and they are residing in the said house. The plaintiffs have the property bearing Sy.No.1/28 measuring 20 guntas which was previously belongs to defendant No.6. In the said property, plaintiff No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of approximately 6 guntas by growing Bhage tree, 2 Banyan trees, 3 Neem trees and 1 Mango tree aged about 8 years. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that since from 50 years, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and also storing hay-stock, wood, grass and waste materials. The plaintiffs are also rearing cattle and buffalo. Plaintiff No.2 is also in possession from 50 years in the same survey number approximately 4 guntas without any interruption from anybody and in that property he also stored waste materials, wood and tethering is cattle and plaintiff No.3 is in possession of 3 guntas by storing waste materials and grass.

4. It is also contended that defendant No.4 is having 2 guntas of land in same survey number and he also stored waste materials and having cattle shed, etc., and also put up toilet room. Defendant No.5 is in possession of one gunta of land before his house and he also put up cattle shed, hullumede and stored waste materials and also put up lavatory. Therefore, they claimed that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. In the month of July 2009, the plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with defendant No.6 tried to purchase 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/2B. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 were well aware of the fact that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are in adverse position. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 immediately issued legal notice to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6. The legal notice was dully served upon them and they have not replied to it. Subsequently, on 07.08.2009 the plaintiffs gave representation to the Tahsildar requesting to grant the said property to them. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 gave complaint to the police and police authorities gave NCR and warned defendants not to interfere. Inspite of that, defendant Nos.1 to 3 proclaimed in the village that they will purchase the property bearing Sy.No.1/2B measuring 20 guntas from defendant No.6. The plaintiffs claimed that they are p