The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to demonstrate ownership through valid sale documents, emphasizing the execution date over registration date for property law.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.7 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. Appellant was defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and respondent No.2 was defendant No.2.

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

4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, an agricultural land bearing Survey No.155/3, measuring 11 guntas situated at Hagalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally, the suit schedule property belonged to defendant No.2 and the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2000 for a valid consideration from defendant No.2, and the vendor of the plaintiff put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, since from the date of its purchase. The name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records as a owner and in possession. The defendants have no right, title, ownership or interest over the suit schedule property. At the instigation of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 came to the suit property on 18.01.2008 and made an unlawful attempt to trespass upon the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Due to timely intervention of respectable persons in the locality, defendant No.1 went away. It is contended that defendant No.1 may come at any time and may try to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Thus, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the so-called sale deed dated 29.06.2000 executed by defendant No.2 was got registered on 11.08.2000 by mentioning the date as 29.06.2000. It is contended that the said document was got created with an ulterior motive to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.2 sold 03 guntas of land out of 11 guntas in the suit schedule property on 05.07.2000 for a valuable consideration and executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and the possession was delivered in favour of defendant No.1. However, at the instigation of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and his wife filed a petition before the Tahasildar, Maddur. The Tahasildar, Maddur directed the defendants to approach the Civil Court.

7. Accordingly, defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.170 of 2002 seeking a relief of declaration that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 05.07.2000 and the consequential reliefs of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 and his family members from interfering in the peaceful possession. The said suit was decreed. There is no sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and the said registered sale deed is void, invalid and illegal, and hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

8. Though summons was served on defendant No.2, he remained unrepresented and hence, was placed ex parte'.

9. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff pr