The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof for adverse possession lies with the claimant, requiring clear and continuous evidence of hostile possession for the statutory period.

CAV JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and decree dated 23.01.2007 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in R.A.no.170/2003, this appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts as stated are, appellant was defendant no.2 in OS no.250/1994 filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) for permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents, etc., from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing house list no.40, khata no.26, measuring East to West - 80 ft. and North to South - 35 ft., situated at Kathiganur Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South (for short 'suit property') and restrain them from constructing bathroom and toilet in it.

3. In plaint, it was stated, plaintiff was absolute owner of suit property, inherited from his ancestors. After death of his father, names of plaintiff and his brother were mutated in revenue records. It was stated, under family settlement deed dated 24.05.1993, suit property was allotted to plaintiff and since then, he was in exclusive possession. And since he was residing near suit property and had no sanitary facility, decided to put up bathroom and toilet, collected necessary materials and begun digging foundation on 18.06.1994. It was stated, without any right, title or interest over suit property defendants prevented plaintiff from proceeding with construction. When plaintiff resisted, they abused and attempted to assault him. On arrival of neighbors, defendants left, by claiming right over suit property and threatened to prevent plaintiff from construction. It was stated, defendants were residing on eastern side of suit property after road and since they were powerful and influential, plaintiff filed suit. Plaint was later amended, adding prayer for declaration of title.

4. On appearance, defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments. It was stated, suit property originally belonged to Sri Muniswamappa. Since 1978, defendants and family members were in occupation and using it for storing firewood, haystack, manure pit and parking their cart, to knowledge of Muniswamappa and his family. Having been in possession and continuous uninterrupted enjoyment of suit property adverse to interest of owners and to their knowledge, defendants had perfected title by adverse possession.

5. It was alternatively stated, in partition between plaintiff and his brothers after death of Muniswamappa, suit property was allotted to M Jayaram Reddy, who in October 1983, approached mother of defendants and sought sale consideration for suit property. Despite, having perfected title by adverse possession, on advise of well-wishers, defendants’ mother paid Rs.5,500/- as full consideration and an agreement of sale was executed acknowledging possession. But, in collusion with Jayaram Reddy, plaintiff fabricated documents and got changed revenue records in year 1993 and filed frivolous suit. It was stated, since defendants had perfected their title, neither plaintiff nor his brother had right to dispossess defendants. On above, counter claim for declaration of title by defendants was sought apart from declaration about family settlement dated 25.04.1993 between plaintiff and his brother as null and void and not binding on defendants.

6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed issues and additional issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his lawful possession of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference by the defendants?

3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for Permanent injunction as prayed for?

4) To What Order or Decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1) Whet