Unregistered relinquishment deeds cannot establish ownership, and adverse possession claims require clear proof of exclusive possession and continuity which the plaintiff failed to provide.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.152 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channapattana, Ramanagara District and the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2012 passed in O.S. No.36 of 2003 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Channapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The original appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were the jointly purchased by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their brother by name Boralingegowda as per the registered sale deed dated 22.07.1963; Defendant No.1 executed a relinquishment deed on 10.01.1980 by receiving a Rs. 200/- for per gunta and released her 1/3^rd share in favour of the plaintiff. Despite which, the khata of the suit schedule properties continued in their joint names and the same were in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff has put up a shed in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and is residing there along with his family members. He had obtained the electricity connection to the shed constructed in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 22 years without any interruption, obstruction and perfected the title by way of adverse possession. It is contended that the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. Hence, 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 before the filing of the present suit, O.S. No.357 of 1987 was filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present plaintiff. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 21.06.1990 and an appeal in R.A. No.38 of 1990 was preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987, which came to be dismissed.

7. It is contended that the defendants filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No.43 of 1999. In view of the above judgment passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.

8. Defendant No.2 filed a Memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1.

9. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues and an additional issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the Plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant over the suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the suit is b