In a suit for declaration and possession based on title, the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1965, commencing only when the defendant's possession becomes adverse. The burden of proving adverse possession lies entirely upon the defendant once the plaintiff has established title.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present second appeal by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2012 in R.A. No.9/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’ for short) confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed in O.S. No.39/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., H.B.Halli (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short), wherein, the suit for declaration and possession came to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, suit came to be filed for declaration to cancel the registered sale deeds executed by Samadevva @ Sannadevva in favour of the Yenigi Virupakshappa are null and void and to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and further sought direction to the defendants to evict the plaint schedule property and hand over the possession to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is a grandson of one Kare Hanumavva who is the absolute owner of the schedule property under the assignment by the Government of Mysore in the year 1945 and since then the schedule property is standing in her name till her death. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kare Hanumavva was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after her death, her son Sannallappa the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff, that neither Kare Hanumavva nor his father Sannallappa had executed any registered sale deed in favour of the defendants. It is further contended that the father of defendant No.1 and father-in-law of defendant No.2 created a document called the registered sale deed by playing fraud, stating that he has purchased the plaint schedule property from one Sanadevva @ Samadevva and he is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff contended that the suit property is standing in the name of Virupakshappa and after his death, the names of defendants No.1 and 2 have been mutated. The defendants without any valuable right over the suit property are not entitled to be in possession and hence, the suit for declaration to cancel the registered sale deed and for possession.

3. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statements inter alia contending that the suit schedule properties belonged to Sanadevva @ Samadevva W/o.Harijana Sannallappa who sold the suit property to Yenigi Virupakshappa for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed dated 28.01.1967, pursuant to which Virupakshappa is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further, on death of Virupakshappa, his five sons have partitioned the property and the suit property is fallen to the share of Siddappa (defendant No.1) and Bhojaraja (husband of defendant No.2) and they are in actual possession and enjoyment.

4. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues:

“1) That for the reasons assigned in para 3 & 4 of the plaint, Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaint schedule property, was originally assigned by the then Government of Mysore in the year 1943 in favour of a lady by name Kare Hanumavva and that all the documents were in the name of said late Kare Hanumavva ?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that, subsequent to the death of said Kare Hanumavva it is her son by name Sannalappa the father of the plaintiff herein had succeeded the plaint schedule property and that neither the Kare Hanumavva nor the Sannalappa have a