The court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession, continuous possession over 30 years must be proven explicitly; mere long possession without asserting hostile title does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2013 passed in R.A. No.168 of 2012 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shivamogga and the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2012 passed in O.S. No.515 of 2007 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

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

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner and has acquired title by way of adverse possession and a consequential relief of confirmation of possession over the suit schedule property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land was in possession and enjoyment of his father-Usman Khan, who was a tenant under the inamdar before the introduction of the Inams Abolition Act and the inamdar also executed a registered sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of Usman Khan. Subsequent to the introduction of Inams Abolition Act, Usman Khan had filed an application seeking an order to grant the land and to confirm the possession.

6. During his lifetime, Usman Khan had purchased Block No.20 V.S. No.6 and Block No.92 V.S. No.25 under the registered sale deed from the Inamdars. Thereafter, Usman Khan filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Mysore Division, Mysore. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner after holding an enquiry passed an order registering the name of Usman Khan as he was the successor-in-interest of Inamdar. The Deputy Commissioner while passing the order dated 28.12.1963, rejected the application submitted by Usman Khan with respect to Block No.91, holding that he purchased the property from Inamdar without obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Usman Khan died in 1964 and subsequent to his death, the plaintiff came in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that he is in possession of the suit property, openly to the knowledge of the authorities of the Government and the society at large and he is in continuous possession without any interference since, the date of sale deed executed by the Inamdars in favour of the plaintiff’s father i.e., from 01.09.1954. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

7. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement and defendant Nos.1 and 2 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.3 by filing a memo.

8. Defendant No. 3 denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit schedule property is vested with the Government and the Government is in possession of the suit schedule property. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors-in-title were in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit schedule property, being an inam land, vested with the Government after the Inams Abolition Act, came into force. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim to be a tenant. The suit schedule property is Kere Kharabu land, and the