The concept of adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile possession over a statutory period, and the failure to establish rightful ownership on part of the defendant resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

1. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendant who has questioned divergent findings of the Courts below, wherein plaintiffs' suit for declaration and possession over the suit land, though dismissed by the Trial Court is reversed by the Appellate Court and thereby, plaintiffs are held to be the owners of the property and defendant is directed to hand over possession. The divergent findings are under challenge at the instance of the defendant.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiffs have instituted the present suit by claiming that suit land is an ancestral property. Plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that defendant is not related to them and that they have been cultivating 1/2 portion of the property since eight years. Plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant had assured them that he would hand over possession as and when demanded by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' grievance is that the defendant, in-spite of repeated demands, has not come forward to hand over possession, therefore, a legal notice was issued on 15.03.1993, calling upon the defendant to hand over possession. Since the defendant failed, the present suit is filed.

4. Defendant, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant claimed that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 80 years and, therefore, contended that plaintiff Nos.2 to 5's father, Ramaiah, had 1/2 share in the suit land and the defendant's father was in possession and enjoyment of the remaining 1/2 share. In the alternate, defendant claimed that defendant's family was holding possession adverse to that of the plaintiffs and therefore contended that they had perfected their title over the suit schedule property. On these set of defences, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Plaintiffs and defendant to substantiate their respective claims, have let in oral and documentary evidence.

6. The Trial Court, on examining the material on record though answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and held that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, however, by answering issue No.3 in the affirmative and in favour of defendant held that defendant had succeeded in proving that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The Trial Court, while answering issue No.3, in the affirmative, was of the view that plaintiffs has not brought in the suit within a period of twelve years from the date of dispossession and, therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to seek possession. Though plaintiffs are held to be owners, the present suit was dismissed by recording a finding that the defendant has perfected the title by way of adverse possession.

7. Plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The Appellate Court, being the final fact finding authority, has independently assessed the material on record. The Appellate Court has adverted to and assessed the admissibility of Ex.D.9, which is a document dated 06.09.1985. Defendant is banking heavily on unregistered partition deed dated 06.09.1985, which was marked as Ex.D.9. Referring to this document, the Appellate Court was of the view that the mutation vide Ex.D.2, wherein defendant's name was duly mutated to the southern 1/2 portion, runs contrary to the recitals in Ex.D.9. While examining Ex.D.9, the Appellate Court was of the view that it is an unregistered document, and the same does not indicate that it is a family sett