The title of a vendor must be established to support a claim of ownership over property, where mere possession is inadequate under property law.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2013 passed in R.A.No.19/2011 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Dvn.), JMFC, Kunigal.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, respondent No.2 was defendant No.1, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were defendant Nos.3 and 4.

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

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit schedule property originally belongs to defendant No.1, who sold the said property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 25.09.2000. Since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contented that the name of the plaintiff is entered in the panchayath records and he is paying the property tax. It is contented that the plaintiff has put up a hut and residing in the said hut along with his family members. It is contented that the defendants have no where concern to the suit schedule property, tried to disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, denying the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.213/2001, which was dismissed on technical ground on 30.06.2006. Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction.

3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff except denying that defendant Nos.2 and 3 interfered with her possession and prays to decree the suit.

3.2. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is also denied that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the instant suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. It is also contended that defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and sold the same in favour of the plaintiff, without title. Hence, the plaintiff has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.3. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves he is in actual and lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are causing interference as alleged in the plaint?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?

5) What order or decree?

3.4. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, she examined herself as PW.1, examined four witnesses as PW.2 to PW.5, and marked 06 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. In rebuttal, ddefendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1, and the Secretary of Grama Panchayath was examined as DW.2 and marked one document as Ex.D1.

3.5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the negative, issue No.3 as does not arise for consideration and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of th