This appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the

judgment and decree dated 10.01.2017 passed in RA.No.175 of

2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM,

Dharwad, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment

and decree dated 01.10.2013 passed in OS.No.705 of 2010 on

the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharward,

decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

3

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this

appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking

before the trial Court.

3.

The plaint averments are that the plaintiff No.1, is

the wife and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the children of late

Ningappa, who died on 09.07.1995. It is the case of the plaintiff

that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties

and the said Ningappa had entered into Agreement of Sale with

the defendant during 1983 in respect of the suit schedule

properties, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for total

consideration of Rs.30,000/- and received Rs.10,000/- as an

advance from the defendant and thereby the said Ningappa

handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the

defendant with certain terms and conditions. It is further averred

in the plaint that, said agreement was not converted into a

registered Sale Deed and therefore, it is the case of the plaintiffs

that the said Agreement of Sale has become null and void and

therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of

declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the

4

suit schedule property as a Agreement of Sale executed in the

year 1983 is not binding on the plaintiffs.

4.

After service of summons, the defendant entered

appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the

averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the

defendant that he disputes the alleged Agreement of Sale as

contended in the plaint and further stated that the property was

belonging to one Badiger and the said Badiger family, left the

place and thereafter, the defendant constructed the house in the

said property in the year 1975, and got electric connection and

developed the property and thereby, he become owner of the

property by way of adverse possession.

5.

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court

has formulated issues for its consideration.

6.

In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.2

examined himself as PW1 and got marked 10 documents as

Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, defendant examined three

5

witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and produced 12 documents as

Exs.D1 to D12.

7.

The trial Court, after considering the material on

record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.10.2013 decreed

the suit in part holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant

possession of the suit schedule property and thereby directed

the defendants to handover the possession of the suit schedule

property to the plaintiffs and being aggrieved by the same, the

defendant has preferred Regular Appeal in RA.No.175 of 2013 on

the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by

the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the

facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 10.01.2017

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court in OS.No.705 of 2010.

8.

Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has

preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

This court by order dated 27.04.2018 has formulated the

following substantial questions of law.

6

1) Whether the trial Court and the First Appellate

Court have committed any serious legal error in

decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs (respondents herein)

in the absence of any declaration of the title and

production of the documents of the title before the

Court ?

2) Whether the trial Court and the First Appellate

Court have committed any serious legal error in

ordering for recovery of possession of the property

without properly considering nature and right of the

r