The present appeal by the plaintiff on concurrent

findings, assailing the judgment and decree dated

08.08.2014 in R.A. No.71/2013 on the file of the

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, (Itinerary Court

at Devadurga) confirming the judgment and decree

- 3 -

dated 17.09.2013 in O.S. No.10/2010 on the file of the

Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga.

The parties herein are referred to as per

their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

The

appellant/plaintiff

filed

a

suit

for

declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property under the unregistered sale deed

dated 11.04.1978, declaring that the judgment and

decree passed in O.S. No.48/1996 is not binding on the

plaintiff for permanent injunction. The defendants/

respondents contested the suit by filing written

statement contending that the father of defendant

Nos.2 to 3 was in possession as an absolute owner of

the suit schedule property and on his death, the

present defendants are in possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property as absolute owners.

- 4 -

4.

The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,

framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he

became absolute owner of suit property by

virtue of unregistered agreement of sale?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that

he is in actual possession of the suit

property as on the date of suit as contended

in plaint para no.3 and 4?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged

interference of the defendants?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief's

sought in this suit?"

5.

In order to substantiate case, the plaintiff

examined himself as PW.1 and two witnesses as PW.2

and PW.3 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to

P.16. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined

herself as DW.1 and two other witnesses as DW.2 and

DW.3 and got marked documents at Exs.D.1 to D.6.

6.

The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,

evidence and material on record held that:

- 5 -

a)

The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue

of unregistered agreement of sale;

b)

The plaintiff has failed to prove the actual

possession of the suit schedule property;

c)

The plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged

interference by the defendants.

And by impugned judgment and decree, the Trial

Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

7.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of

the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal

before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate

Court on re- appreciation of the material on record and

on facts, confirmed the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff is before

this Court.

8.

Heard Smt. Rekha S. Patil, learned counsel

appearing for Sri. G.G. Chagashetti learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri. Sachin M. Mahajan, learned

- 6 -

counsel for the respondent and perused the entire

material on record.

9.

It is undisputed fact that the father of

defendant Nos.2 and 3 and husband of defendant No.1

one Hampanna had filed a suit in O.S. No.48/1996 for

permanent injunction against one Basawaraj, S/o

Mallappa Badal and Shivappa, S/o Mallappa Badal and

the said suit came to be decreed holding that the

plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property

and the defendants therein were restrained by way of

injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession

and

enjoyment

of

the

suit

schedule

property

permanently. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff

is claiming ownership of the suit property by virtue of

an unregistered sale deed dated 11.09.1978, according

to the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff has purchased

the suit property through unregistered sale deed at

Ex.P.1 duly executed by one Sharanappa S/o Budeppa

and on death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff has

- 7 -

been the absolute owner, in possession of the suit

schedule property. The plaintiff, to establish that he is

in possession of the suit sc