Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts support defendant's lawful possession and ownership; plaintiff's claims found insufficient to challenge documented sales.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

1. This is plaintiff’s appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2004, passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nanjangud, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.138/2001 and same was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud, (for short, `first Appellate Court'), in R.A.No.17/2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that : the plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff has contended that his grandmother, one Smt. Subbamma, had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1941 under a registered Sale Deed. It was further stated that Smt.Subbamma had been running a 'Puri Bhatti' in the said property for about three years, 15 to 16 years prior to the filing of the suit.

4. The plaintiff further contended that after the death of Smt.Subbamma, her only son Chikkaiah succeeded to the suit property. The said Chikkaiah had three daughters by name, Chikkamma, Parvathi and Devamma; He had two sons i.e., plaintiff and one Mahadeva. Chikkamma and Mahadeva were no more. Other two sisters of the plaintiff have given up their right over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in possession of the suit property. Defendant without any right or interest over the property, was interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. With these reasons, he prayed to grant the relief as prayed.

5. The defendant contended that he had purchased half portion of the suit schedule property, measuring East- West 7 yards and North-South 6 yards from Smt.Subbamma, wife of Madaiah under a registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1967 for a sale consideration of Rs.150/- and he was put in possession of the said portion of the land. Thereafter, he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. His name was entered in the revenue records. He has been regularly paying municipal taxes in respect of the suit schedule property. He also mortgaged the said property on 14.08.1985 for Rs.5,000/- to one Muddumadaiah S/o Maridevaru, which was subsequently, redeemed. Plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property purchased by the defendant. Hence, there is no question of interference by the defendant. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court after hearing both side, framed the following issues:

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

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as claimed in the suit?

4. What decree or order?"

7. The trial Court recorded the evidence; plaintiff examined two witnesses and marked the documents as Exs.P-1 to P-19. The defendant examined two witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2 and marked documents as Ex.D-1 to D-18.

8. After hearing both parties, the trial Court appreciating the material on record, answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and issue Nos.2 & 3 in the negative and ultimately dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 01.07.2004.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.77/2004 before the Court of