Ownership and possession must be substantiated by evidence, and the defense of possession through a sale agreement requires proof of readiness to perform contract obligations; otherwise, it does not confer legal title.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.52 of 2012 by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property measures 20 guntas of land out of 10 acres 15 guntas of land in Survey No.192/1 of Angadi village. It is the case of the plaintiff that, Survey No.192/1 of Angadi Village totally measures 12 acres 35 guntas, including 2 acres 30 guntas of Kharab, was owned by the plaintiff and his mother Mallamma.

5. The plaintiff's mother Mallamma died on 23.08.2006. During the lifetime of Mallamma, out of the said property, the plaintiff and his mother sold 10 guntas each to one A.K. Chandrasekhar, A.M. Dyavappa, A.M. Erappa, A.V. Manjunath, A.V. Ahithkumar, Smt. Hoovamma, A.B. Suresh, A.K. Nagaraj, A.K. Padmanabha and Rajashekhara. The remaining extent of 10 acres 15 guntas of land including 2 acres 3 guntas of Kharab was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff is cultivating the same with the coffee, cardamom and banana. The plaintiff has constructed a residential house which is in this 10 acres 15 guntas of land and the khata was changed in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his mother.

7. The plaintiff and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2004 seeking a relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement contending that under the Agreement of Sale dated 18.10.1981, the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit came to be dismissed by holding that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under the Sale Agreement dated 18.10.1981. The defendant is in wrongful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property. The defendant denied to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for possession.

8. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than five decades. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right over the kharab portion in Survey No.192/1. It is contended that the defendant is suffering from periodic insanity due to mental illness. The plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant and has represented that he will execute a sale deed in favour of the defendant regarding a portion of land in Survey No.192/1 and executed a Sale Agreement dated 18.10.1981. But, the plaintiff did not execute a registered sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitl