The court affirmed that mere possession claims based on panchayat records without substantive proof do not establish legal ownership, emphasizing the necessity of lawful possession documentation.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of judgment and decree dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapattana, District Ramanagar, which arose out of judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Channapatna, in OS.No.98/2005. The suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree.

2. RSA No.1324/2012 is filed by the plaintiff and RSA No.1762/2012 is filed by defendant No.1. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the suit property bearing Khata No.166/3 measuring 35 feet east to west and 80 feet north to south was a site formed by Mallur Mandal Panchayath along with other sites. The Khata No.166/3 was granted in the name of one Kempangowda by the Pradhan of Mallur Mandal Panchayath on 25.01.1991 and the said grantee paid a sum of Rs.2,800/- for the grant of the land. The plaintiff purchased the said property by a registered Sale Deed dated 30.10.2003. Thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records. He has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land and he has been paying the tax to the panchayath.

5. Further, the case of the plaintiff was that the defendants were trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Defendant No.3 tried to cancel the grant. With these reasons, prayed to decree the suit.

6. Defendant No.1 is claiming possession over the suit property. According to defendants, totally 164 sites were formed in Survey No.492 during the year 1973 and said sites were distributed to the beneficiaries. The said sites were measuring 180 X 45 feet. Therefore, no land was vested with the Panchayath in Survey No.492 to grant any land in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of any portion of Survey No.492 or property bearing No.166/3. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. The defendant No.2-panchayath also denied plaint averments. It has also contended that in Survey No.492, 164 sites were formed and Pradhan of the Panchayath had no right to grant the land or allot Hakku Patra. A resolution was passed by the defendant No.2 for the purpose of distributing the sites in respect of 164 persons. The said list was approved by the State Government. No records were available in the Panchayat regarding the creation of the khata of the alleged suit schedule property either in the name of Kempankegowda or subsequently in the name of the plaintiff. The sites were allotted by the Tahsildar. The alleged grant claimed by the plaintiff is false and in violation of the applicable conditions. Defendant No.2 has also denied the plaintiff’s possession through his vendor and prayed to dismiss the suit.

8. The Trial Court framed following issues:

"1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of defendants with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property as alleged in the plaint?

3. What order or decree?"

9. The plaintiff to prove his case examined tw