The courts affirmed ancestral ownership over fraudulent claims and established that adverse possession requires unequivocal evidence, which was lacking from the defendants' assertions.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission and earlier this Court had heard the matter in part. The learned counsel for the appellant in the previous occasion had sought time to place on record the judgments. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the earlier judgment passed in O.S.No.50/2005, the order passed in R.A.No.418/2008 and also the order passed by this Court in R.S.A.No.2482/2011.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, it is contented that earlier liberty was given by the High Court to file a suit for declaration of title and possession. It is contended that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the defendants father Eregowda. The grandfather of the plaintiff Siddegowda had purchased the suit schedule property by way of sale deed dated 29.03.1949 and he was in possession from the said date. The grandfather of the plaintiff was having three sons by name Siddegowda, Puttegowda and father of the plaintiff Maridyavegowda. The grandfather of the plaintiff died before 40 years. After the death of the grandfather of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s father and his brothers partitioned the joint family properties about 30 years back and in the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father and he got right and possession over the suit schedule property. The other two sons of the plaintiff’s grandfather by name Siddegowda and Puttegowda have been died and they have no male children. The father of the plaintiff Maridyavegowda died 15 years back. After his death, the plaintiff, his two brothers namely Rajappa, Ganesha and his mother Nanjamma got divided the joint family properties at about 12 years back. In the said partition, the plaint schedule property was fallen to the share of the plaintiff and he got the right, title and possession. The khatha of the plaint schedule property still stands in the name of his grandfather Siddegowda. The defendants are in no way concerned with the rights and possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant No.1 had filed the original suit before this Court in O.S.No.50/2005 for the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his brother by including the plaint schedule properties survey number and had given false boundaries. The said suit was decreed in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff herein had preferred an appeal in R.A.No.418/2018 and the same came to be dismissed and as against that order, second appeal was also filed. It is contented that when an attempt was made to interfere with possession of the property, the same was resisted.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement and pleaded their defence specifically denying the case of the plaintiff. It is contented that the suit itself is not maintainable. The father of the plaintiff Eregowda has sold 6 acres 26 guntas of land in 4 survey numbers in favour of the plaintiff’s grandfather Siddegowda by way of registered sale deed dated 29.03.1949 and the said Siddegowda was in possession of those properties till his death. After his death, the plaintiff’s father and his uncles succeeded to the said properties. The said three sons of Siddegowda by name Puttegowda, Siddegowda and Maridyavegowda in the year 1983 entered into an oral agreement of sale with the defendants and their father Eregowda with regard to the suit schedule property by fixing the consideration amount of Rs.2