Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., learned counsel for the appellant has

appeared in person.

Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa.,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent has appeared through video conferencing.

This is an appeal from the Court of Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Kunigal.

For the sake of convenience, the status of the

parties is referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4.

The plaint averments are these:

- 3 -

It is said that the suit schedule property originally

belonged to the plaintiff’s grandfather, Doddaiah. He had six

sons and the suit schedule property fell to the share of the

father of the plaintiff and he has been in possession and

enjoyment of the same. It is pleaded that the father of the

plaintiff Doddaiah sold the property to one Totlaiah who is the

father of the first defendant and grandfather of the second

defendant and executed a registered nominal sale deed on

03.10.1947 with a condition to re-convey the property on

payment of money. Sri.Thotlaiah sold 01 Acre of land in

Sy.No.249/6 in favor of his younger brother Doddaiah for

consideration of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred Only) under

a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1974. It is contended that

the father of the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment

and cultivation of the suit property. It is said that he is an

illiterate man, and he did not make any inquiry about the

change of Khata into his name. After the death of his father,

the officials of the revenue authorities mutated his name in the

revenue records in the year 1996-97. But the defendants have

no manner of right, title, or interest tried to interfere with his

possession, hence he filed a suit.

- 4 -

After the service of the suit summons, the defendants

entered an appearance and filed the written statement. They

denied the plaint averments. They contended that the land

bearing Sy.No.249/06 measuring 01 Acre 16 Guntas is situated

at Ippadi Village, Kunigal Taluk and it belonged to one Totlaiah

who is none other than the father of defendants 1 & 2. Totlaiah

had sold 01 acre of land in the said survey number in favor of

his younger brother Doddaiah for Rs.300/- (Rupees Three

Hundred only) under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1974.

Thereafter, Doddaiah applied for the change of Khata and

Pahani in respect of 01 Acre of land in his favor but the same

came to be rejected in MR.17/74-75 on the ground that the

transaction is in contravention of the provisions of the

Fragmentation Act. The sale deed dated 16.05.1974 has

become void. They contended that Totlaiah continued in

possession and enjoyment of the said land till his death. After

the death of Totlaiah, they succeeded to the property. They

specifically contended that the plaintiffs got changed the khata

in their name after a lapse of 22 years under MR.No.47/96-97.

The first defendant challenged the said MR before the AC, and

the appeal was allowed. They denied the plea about adverse

- 5 -

possession. Among other grounds, they prayed for the

dismissal of the suit.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed

Issues. The respective parties led evidence to substantiate the

claim, and documents were marked. On the trial of the action,

the Trial Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the Judgment

and Decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal

before the First Appellate Court. On appeal, the First Appellate

Court reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court.

Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1

under Section 100 of CPC.

5.

Sri.Y.T.Abhinay., learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate

Court are contrary to the evidence on record and the law.

Next, he submits that the sale deed dated 16.05.1974

(Ex.P.1) came into existence when the Fragmentation Act was

in force, and hence the said document is a void document and

the same has no sanctity in the eye of the law.

He made a further submission that the plaintiffs did not

produce a piece of do