The appellate court emphasized the significance of genealogical evidence and historical revenue records in establishing ownership, while highlighting the failure of the defendants to prove their title, leading to a remand for de novo consideration.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

The appeal in RFA No.1528/2020 is filed by the appellants under Order 41 rule 1 r/w Section 96 of the CPC , praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned I-Addl. Sr. Civil Judge and C.J.M., at Mysuru, in the suit in O.S.No.501/2008.

2. The RFA Crob.No.23/2021 is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC by the Cross- Objector praying to set aside the findings on Issue no.4 in the Judgment and Decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the I Addl. Sr. Civil judge and C.J.M., Mysuru in O.S.No.501/2008 and to allow this cross appeal with costs.

3. Both this appeal and cross objection being inter- connected, are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common order. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. We have heard the learned counsel Shri G.A Srikante Gowda for appellant in RFA No.1528/2020 who is also representing Respondent Nos.1 to 9 in RFA.Crob.23/2021. Further, we have heard the learned counsel Shri Rajeshwara P.N. for Respondent No.5 in RFA No.1528/2020 and who is representing the Cross Objector in RFA Crob No. 23/2021.

5. The factual matrix of the cases is as under:

The plaintiffs in the suit, who are the appellants herein, claim to be the legal heirs of Late Venkategowda and Smt. Honamma. Both of them are children of Late Dasanakoppalu Bundaiah, the only son of Late Smt. Narasamma @ Bundathayi Narasamma and Late Bettadasegowda. The subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.501/2008 concerned land bearing Survey No. 53/3 (subsequently renumbered as 53/3A and 53/3B), situated at Madagalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, measuring approximately 4 acres and 4 guntas.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to one Kala @ Siddegowda, the father of Narasamma. The revenue records from 1935 to 1945 recorded the land in his name. Due to his failure to pay land revenue, the Government of Karnataka classified the land as ‘beelu’ (waste land). In 1945–46, the Government restored the property in Narasamma’s name under MR No. 4/1945–46 and effected the katha (mutation entry) in her favour.

7. The plaintiffs state that Narasamma died in he year 1952 without alienating the suit schedule property. Her son Bundaiah inherited the property. After Bundaiah’s demise in 1980, the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs, claim to have succeeded to the land and continued in peaceful possession until May 2008. They allege that Defendant No. 5 / M.B. Chidananda, unlawfully dispossessed them at that point.

8. The plaintiffs further assert that Honnegowda @ Annaiah / Defendant No.6, fraudulently initiated an unauthorised chain of alienations by selling a portion of the suit land to Shambugowda / Defendant No.7. The property thereafter changed hands through a series of transfers, ultimately culminating in the s