The suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff had knowledge of a sale deed prior to 1998, failing to file within three years post-knowledge, thus confirming the defendant's title to the property.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

This appeal arises out of the divergent findings in O.S.No.43/2002 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Hirekerur and R.A.No.113/2006 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Itinerate Court, Hirekerur dated 29.09.2007. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court had decreed the suit by reversing the dismissal of the Trial Court. The defendant No.1 before the Trial Court is in appeal before this Court.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

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

a. The suit property is a cattle shed situated in Gram Panchayat No.11 (portion of Survey No.1/10) measuring 2 ½ guntas and it is bounded by the remaining 2 ½ guntas in the said survey number on the northern side.

b. The suit schedule property was owned by the family of one Doddagouda. Doddagouda had four sons i.e. Channabasappa, Basavannippa, Dundappa and Shidlingappa.

c. It is the case of the plaintiff that, during lifetime of Doddagouda, a partition had been effected in the family properties and in the said partition, Survey No.1/10, measuring 5 guntas came to be allotted commonly to the said Channabasappa and the plaintiff-Shidlingappa. The said partition was recorded in mutation entry No.249, dated 17.12.1985.

d. The Survey No.1/10 was again divided among the said Channabasappa and Shidlingappa and the northern portion came to the share of the plaintiff- Shidlingappa. He had constructed a cattle shed in the said property and his brother Channabasappa has constructed a residential house.

e. It was contented by the plaintiff that in the revenue records i.e., RTC, the name of the plaintiff appears as the owner and possessor and the property was not converted into non-agriculture.

f. The plaintiff came to know that the Panchayat officials had given a Panchayat No.11 and name of the plaintiff was appearing for some years and later, his name was deleted and the name of the defendant No.1 was entered. Therefore, he had given a representation to the Zilla Panchayat, but it has not been considered.

g. The suit schedule property was never the property belonging to his brother Basavannippa (Defendant No.2) and he colluded with the Panchayat officials and got his name entered though he had no right, title or interest over the same.

h. The defendant No.1 got his name entered in the Panchayat records and started obstructing the enjoyment of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

i. The plaintiff sought a declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and as a consequence, the defendant No.1 be restrained from obstructing the enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

4. On service of notice, the defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement. The defendant No.2, who is the brother of the plaintiff, did appear before the Trial Court, but he did not file any written statement.

5. The contention of defendant No.1 is summarized as below:

a. It is his contention that there was no such partition as contented by the plaintiff on 17.12.1985 as per M.E.No.249. The defendant No.1 contended that the defendant No.2 has sold the Panchayat No.11 in Survey No.1/10 to the defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 09.08.1982 for a con