Ownership must be substantiated by valid documentation, and mere alterations in revenue records do not negate rightful claims without substantial evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

The captioned appeal is by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.82/2016. Plaintiffs suit seeking relief of declaration for permanent injunction over the suit schedule property is dismissed by the Court below by holding that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that they are the joint owners.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Before this Court delves into the matter, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the family tree of the original owner namely Yallawwa W/o Bhimappa Balawad. The same is extracted as under:

4. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs who are claiming to be the grand children of one Yallawwa Balawad are seeking a declaration of title based on gift deed executed by Mallappa Lakkappa Savadi in favour of Yallawwa in respect of Sy.No.98/2 and another land bearing Sy.No.99/3, both situated at Mantur Village, Mudhol Taluk. Plaintiffs assert that their grandmother Yallawwa became the absolute owner pursuant to gift deed executed by one Mallappa on 21.03.1941. Plaintiffs have further pleaded that after death of Yallawwa, they have inherited the suit land as well as the other land and therefore, claim to be the absolute owners and in actual possession over the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs, however, on enquiring into the revenue records found that though Yallawwa's name was reflected in the RTC since 1941, however, Yallawwa's name was continued till 1998-99 and thereafter the defendants ancestor namely Yallappa S/o Bhimappa Talawar got his name mutated to the RTC pertaining to the suit property in 1998-99. Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 to 7 have got their name mutated as per M.R.No.59/2011- 12 on the premise that Yallappa Bhimpaa Talawar died on 30.09.2006.

Plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the impugned mutations thereby entering the defendants name preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner on enquiry ordered to delete the names of defendants and restore the name of the plaintiffs ancestor. Same is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. However, plaintiffs asserting that defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, the present suit is filed to declare plaintiffs as joint owners and in joint possession of the suit schedule property.

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Apart from denying the plaintiffs title over the suit schedule property, the defendants also claimed that the present suit is clearly time barred since plaintiffs have failed to challenge the entries in the RTC which were deleted in 1998. Defendants claimed that for the last 20 years, plaintiffs have not taken any action against mutations in the RTC and therefore, requested to dismiss the suit.

Plaintiffs to substantiate their title over the property in question let in oral and documentary evidence. Defendants, however, let in only oral evidence of defendant No.3 and did not produce any documents to substantiate their title and possession over the suit schedule property.

Trial Court in absence of gift deed declined to confer title on the plaintiffs and accordingly, answered issue No.1 in the negative. While answering issue No.4 in the affirmative, trial Court held that defendants have succeeded in proving that the present suit is barred by limitation.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs a