The court affirmed the principle that ownership must be established through valid documentation, and mere possession does not equate to ownership without proof of adverse possession.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)

The defendants are before this Court in this regular second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2023 in R.A. No.18/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Ballari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’, for short) reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No.485/2008 dated 18.12.2013 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for short), wherein, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit schedule property and entitled for vacant possession.

2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. Suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e. agriculture land Sy.No.114-A/2B to an extent of 1.80 acres (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’ for the sake of convenience), for delivery of possession and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff’s father Harishchandra Gouda purchased the suit schedule property in the name of his wife Durgamma for valuable sale consideration under a registered sale deed dated 09.05.1970 from the erstwhile vendors and on the date of the sale deed, the vendors delivered the physical possession in favour of Durgamma, by virtue of the registered sale deed the name of Durgamma is entered in the revenue records. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the demise of Durgamma and during the lifetime of Harishchandra Gouda, the plaintiff is cultivating and harvesting the crops, further defendant No.2, her minor sons and defendant No.1 instituted suit in O.S. No.45/2001 against Harishchandra Gouda and another seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was partly decreed, the prayer for relief of declaration was rejected and relief of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the defendants, holding that defendants not to be dispossessed without following due process of law, regular appeal filed by father of plaintiff Harishchandra Gouda challenging the decree insofar as granting injunction in favour of the defendants came to be dismissed confirming the injunction in favour of the defendants. The relief rejecting the prayer of declaration stood unassailed by the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that after the death of Durgamma, Harishchandra Gouda married Shankaramma the mother of the plaintiff, legal heirs of Durgamma namely Ramalingamma, Sharanagouda and Basvanagouda have executed a relinquishment deed in her favour on 08.08.2006, relinquishing the entire share in the suit schedule property and accordingly, her name has been entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in lawful possession.

4. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying about the execution of the sale deed in favor of Durgamma by Karibasappa and his brothers, on the other hand took a plea that the suit schedule property was mortgaged towards security with an agreement to reconvey, the alleged document is only a nominal document executed in favour of Durgamma never intending to sell. The filing of the suit O.S. No.45/2001 by the defendants and relief of declaration being rejected is not disputed.

5. Further plea, that the defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property openly, peacefully adverse to the knowledge of Durgamma and Ha