J U D G M E N T

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondent in both the appeals.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. These two appeals are filed by the defendants questioning the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.198/1994 and also O.S.No.202/1995 and confirming the same in the Regular Appeal in R.A.No.20/2006 and R.A.No.21/2006 respectively. These two second appeals are filed against the concurrent findings.

4. The suit in O.S.No.198/1994 is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction claiming in respect of land in Sy.No.73 measuring 8 acres 12 guntas of land in Avaragolla village, Davanagere Taluk and one deceased Kotraiah was the convener of the plaintiff and plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and title is vested with the plaintiff. The defendants tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction. The defendants in pursuance of suit summons appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement contending that suit schedule property originally belongs to ‘Igalu Samastharu’ and plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit schedule property and not having title to the suit schedule property. Hence, the Trial Court taking into note of the averments of the pleadings and also the contention in the written statement framed the following issues:

ISSUES IN O.S.No.198/1994

1) Whether plaintiff proves its title to the suit schedule property?

2) Whether plaintiff further proves that deceased Kotraiah was convener of plaintiff?

3) Whether plaintiff further proves its lawful possession over suit property as on date of suit?

4) Whether plaintiff proves interference by defendants as alleged?

5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunctions as sought for?

6) Whether defendants prove that suit property originally belonged to ‘Igalu Samastharu’ as pleaded in the written statement?

7) To what relief/s the parties are entitled to?

8) What order or decree?

5. The plaintiffs have also filed another suit in O.S.No.202/1995 contending that the Gaddige and the site measuring 40 x 80 belongs to the plaintiff and they are the owners of the suit schedule property and also contend that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, sought for the relief of declaration and injunction. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that they are perfected their title of suit schedule property by adverse possession and also suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The suit is also barred by limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act and the suit has to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Hence, the Trial Court taking into note of the averments of the pleadings and also the contention in the written statement framed the following issues:

ISSUES IN O.S.No.202/1995

1) Whether plaintiff proves its title to the suit property?

2) Whether plaintiff proves interference by defendants as alleged?

3) Whether defendants prove that they have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession?

4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration and injunction sought for?

5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

6) Whether the suit is barred under Section

65 of Limitation Act as alleged by defendants?

7) Whether defendants are entitled for exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/-?

8) What order or decree?

6. Both the suits are clubbed together since the parties are one and the same in both the suits. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On the other hand, the defendants have also examined 5 witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D119. The Trial Court having considered both oral and d