Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16675
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
GURALING S/O. RAMAPPA KAMATE – Appellant
Versus
SAHIVAMOGGI S/O. ADIVEPPA KURABET – Respondent
RSA NO.100105 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SABHEEL AHMED, SRI. A. S. PATIL
For the Respondents: SRI. RAMESH ZIRALI
The court affirmed that ownership claims must be substantiated by valid legal documents, and failure to plead essential elements of adverse possession results in rejection of such claims.
Headnote:(A) The Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 - Ownership and possession of property - Plaintiff claimed ownership through adoption and prior possession, while defendants claimed through sale deeds and adverse possession - Deeds of sale were cancelled under the Act, negating defendants' claims of ownership - No substantial question of law arose as the decree had been satisfied by the defendants delivering possession. (Paras 2, 12, 14, 16)
(B) Adverse possession - Essential elements of pleading and proving adverse possession were not met by defendants, leading to rejection of their claim. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and possession of properties against the defendants, who were relatives claiming ownership through historical possession and sale deeds. The plaintiff was the adopted son of the previous owner and had been in possession since 1974.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court found in favor of the plaintiff, confirming his ownership and possession rights.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the defendants' claims based on sale deeds and adverse possession versus the plaintiff's claim through adoption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants could not establish their claims of ownership or adverse possession due to the cancellation of the sale deeds and lack of necessary pleading.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. analysis of evidence and legal requirements (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments on possession and ownership rights (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal and confirmation of lower court's decision (Para 16) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. The defendants are before this Court in this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11th March 2013, passed in O.S. No.26/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi, which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 17th April 2015, passed in R.A. No.119/2013 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi at Chikodi.
2. The above suit in O.S. No.26/2008 is filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein seeking the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit properties and also for the relief of possession of the three farm houses and shed situated in the land bearing R.S. No.110/3 situated at Kabbur Village and also for the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that, he was the adopted son of one Adiveppa Mallappa Kurbett of Kabbur Village in 1967 in terms of registered deed of adoption. Upon the demise of his adoptive father, the name of the plaintiff came to be mutated vide M.E. No.7003, dated 29.10.1974 and as such the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
4. The defendants are the relatives of the natural father of the plaintiff namely Mallappa Irappa Kurbet. They had sought permission of the plaintiff to occupy the three farm houses existed in the suit properties to be used for their residential purposes promising to vacate the same within a short period. Considering the same, the plaintiff had permitted the defendants to use the said three farm houses. The defendants have no right, title and interest in any portion of the suit properties or in the farm houses existed thereon. That taking undue advantage, being in permissive possession, they attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, constraining him to file the above suit for declaration and possession.
5. Written statement is filed by defendant No.2 denying the plaint averments, however admitted the existence of the suit properties. Claim of the plaintiff being the owner in possession is denied. The allegation of the defendants disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff is also denied. The defendants have claimed that they have in possession of the suit properties for over 80 to 100 years from the time of the ancestors, cultivating the suit land and they also having constructed the suit houses.
6. It is contended that the defendants are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit property in terms of a registered deed of sale that was executed in their favour on 15.10.1957 by their grandfather Ramappa. However, in view of provisions of The Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act , 1966, the same could not be acted upon and same was cancelled. It is also contended that the defendants were in possession of the suit property in terms of the agreement executed by the plaintiff as per of Ex.D.3 during 1984. Alternatively, defendants have contended that in the event of Court coming to the conclusion of plaintiff being entitled for possession of suit property, they may be declared as having become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
“Issues
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of adoption when he is in possession of the suit properties till today by paying the revenue and taxes?
2. Whether he further proves the amendment and development made by the adoptive fat
