J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2007 passed in R.A.No.2/2004, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Srirangapatna, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2003 passed in O.S.No.767/1999, on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Pandavapura.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.767/1999 while seeking the relief of declaration and injunction is that, defendant No.1 was the owner in possession of two plots of land situated within the boundaries i.e., East – land of Kalegowda, West – Oni, South – Devamma’s land, North – land of Shivalingamma and East – land of Siddegowdana Kalegowda, West – Oni, South – land of Javarayigowda, North – land of Kalanarasegowda. The first plot measures 9 guntas bearing Sy.No.4/10 and the second plot measures 8 guntas bearing Sy.No.4/12. The defendant No.1 sold the above lands to Sri Kalegowda alias Bundegowda for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 28.10.1954 and put him in possession of the same. The plaintiff is the son of late Kalegowda @ Bundegowda and as such is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land as owner thereof after the death of his father. The defendant No.1 intended to sell the lands situated within the aforesaid boundaries, likewise the father of the plaintiff also wanted to purchase the land situated within the definite boundaries alone. Since both being rustic villagers, identified the lands only with reference to the boundaries which is strengthened by the fact of recital of the boundaries in the sale deed as main description and extent and survey number as supplement to the same.

3. The plaintiff came to know in the first week of January 1998 that the khata of the schedule lands is continuing in the name of the defendant No.1 alone and taking undue advantage of the same, he has executed a nominal sale deed in favour of defendant No.2, who has assured him to fight the litigation. After verification, the plaintiff learnt that the khata was not mutated to the name of his father since the survey numbers of the lands were mentioned as Sy.Nos.1/8 and 1/16 instead of Sy.Nos.4/10 and 4/12, though actually the land purchased were bearing Sy.Nos.4/10 and 4/12. Likewise, the extent were also mentioned as 6 guntas and 12½ guntas instead of 9 and 8 guntas respectively. This is only due to the ignorance of the parties and is a mis-description due to mistake. After verification, the plaintiff ascertained that the land bearing Sy.No.1/8 measuring 16 guntas belong to one K. Gopalagowda and Sy.No.1/16 measuring 11 guntas belong to the Block Development Office, Pandavapura and those land never belonged to defendant No.1, as such he would not have sold the same and the plaintiff’s father purchased the same. It is contended that the defendants are interfering with his possession by taking advantage of the entries in the RTC ignoring the registered sale deed and actual enjoyment. Their acts cast a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and hence filed a suit for the relief of declaration and injunction since defendant No.1 did not execute a rectification deed inspite of legal notice and defendants refused to settle the matter outside the Court.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the suit itself is barred by limitation and not maintainable. The defendant No.1 was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property bearing Sy.Nos.1/8 and 1/16 of K. Hosur Village as absolute owner thereof and the property bearing the said survey numbers belong to one K.B. Kalegowda bin Bettegowda and BDO, Pandavapura, respectively and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that it is false to say that the deceased defendant No.1 sold the aforesaid survey number properties in favour of father of the plaintiff through the registered sa