Plaintiffs failed to establish claim of adverse possession as they could not prove continuous and open possession over the disputed property.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This regular first appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.66/2015 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial court.

3. The Appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal are as under.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal, who died on 10.12.1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs. The deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After his demise, the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs, inherited the property left by the deceased Kadappa. Initially, the suit property was owned and possessed by Hanmanthrao Balappa Desai, who was the then landlord of the suit schedule property. The deceased Kadappa was in possession of the suit schedule property before 1950 till his death. The mutation was effected in the name of Kadappa. After the demise of Kadappa, the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs, continued the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Defendant No.3 is in no way concerned either to the plaintiffs or to the suit property and illegally mutated his name to the portion of the suit schedule property, i.e., to the extent of 5 acres under the guise that, the suit property was granted to Kadappa Allappa Jagadal, who was no-way concerned to any portion of the suit property. The Plaintiffs were not a party to the revenue proceedings initiated by defendant No.3. The revenue entries in the name of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Based on false entry in the RTC of the suit schedule property, defendant No.3 started to illegally obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property prior to 20.12.2014 by denying the ownership and possessory right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got issued a notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants. Despite service of notice, the defendants did not reply to the notice. It is stated that, the suit property was owned and possessed by Hanumantrao Balappa Desai with the consent of the deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal. None of the legal representatives of the deceased Hanumantrao Desai have objected the same. Thus, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Hence, on these grounds prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement denying the entire averments made in the paint. It is contended that, plaintiff No.1 is not the wife of Kadappa Jagadal. His real wife is Laxmibai. Kadappa and Laxmibai had a daughter by name of Yamanawwa. The said Yamanawwa was given in marriage to one Sadashiv Latur. The plaintiffs have shown the father’s name of Kadappa as “Mallappa”, but actually, Kadappa’s father name is “Allappa”. The Assistant Commissioner of Jamkhandi granted the suit property measuring 5 acres in favour of Kadappa, i.e., adopted father of defendant No.3 in 2009. Defendant No.3 was adopted by Kadappa, and the registered adoption deed was executed, and on the basis of the same, the name of defendant No.3 was entered in the revenue records. He is growing sugarcane and turmer