IMPORTANT POINT
Pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and latter does not begin to operate until former is renounced.

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—This appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S. No.183/2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Davangere, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2010 passed therein, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property and directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of ‘B’ schedule property to the plaintiff:

2. During the course of the judgment, the parties herein would be referred to with reference to their ranking in the trial court.

3. The sole plaintiff filed the suit on 3.12.2001 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Davangere, in O.S. 364/2001 for the relief of declaration, declaring that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of ‘B’ schedule property.

4. The property described in plaint ‘A’ schedule is plot No.89 formed in Survey No.74/1 later numbered as 74/lYPI situated in Yellammanagara, Davangere City, measuring East-West: 30ft: and North-South: 78ft. A portion of plaint ‘A’ schedule property measuring East-West towards north: 30ft and towards South: 13ft. and North- South:78ft has been described as ‘B’ schedule property.

5. The plaintiff inter alia contended that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property along with other neigbouring properties was originally owned by one J. Siddappa, s/o. Jogappara Siddappa; that the said Siddappa sold Plot No.89 formed by him in the said land in favour of Smt. Parvathamma under registered sale deed dated 21.12.1978; that said Parvathamma in turn sold plaint ‘A’ schedule property in favour of one Smt. Rajalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 5.2.1979 and placed the purchaser Smt. Rajalakshmi in possession of the said site; that subsequently, under registered sale deed dated 13.4.1982 the said Rajalakshmi sold plaint ‘A’ schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and placed him in possession of the said property; that ever since the date of the purchase, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property and also constructed a cattle shed in a portion of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property; that subsequently in the year 1998, Davangere Urban Development Authority (for short, ‘DUDA’) while forming a ring- road, acquired a portion of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and what remains after acquisition is plaint ‘B’ schedule property and thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property; that the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property of the plaintiff and on 23.11.2001 they threatened to demolish the cattle shed and take forcible possession, which the plaintiff could defend with great difficulty. Therefore, he filed the suit for declaration of his title and for a ‘consequential relief of injunction.

6. Defendant No.1 is the wife and Defendant No.3 is the son of Defendant No.2. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. They admitted that the property originally belonged to Siddappa and he sold the plaint ‘A’ schedule property in favour of Smt. Parvathamma. However, they denied the case of the plaintiff that the said Parvathamma sold plaint ‘A’ schedule property to Smt. Rajalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 5.2.1979. They contended that Parvathamma had not executed any sale deed in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi nor Smt. Rajalakshmi was placed in possession of the same. They denied the further case of the plaintiff that Rajalakshmi in turn sold the plaint ‘A’ schedule property to the plaintiff. They contended that Smt. Parvathamma, as absolute owner in possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, sol