In property disputes, continuous possession may affirm ownership, overriding claims based on conflicting title theories or defects in survey documentation.

CAV JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the appellants/defendants under section 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment for having decreed the suit of the plaintiff passed in OS No.922/2006 dated 1.4.2015 by XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH- 44, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents.

3. In RFA No.569/2015, the appellants were the defendants Nos.1 and 6, respondent Nos.1(a) to (c) are the legal heirs of defendant No.3, respondent Nos.2, 4, and 5 are defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 before the trial court.

4. In RFA No.622/2015, the appellants are the legal heirs of defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1, 6 and 2 before the trial court.

5. In RFA No.947/2015 appellant is defendant No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are defendant Nos.1 and 6, respondent Nos.3(a) to (c) are the legal heirs of defendant No.3 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 before the trial court. The ranks of the parties are retained as per the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

6. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property and seeking for injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property with other reliefs.

7. It is alleged that the plaintiff is the son of one late Munivenkatappa and grand son of one Pillappa @ Munivenkatappa. The suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.112/1 measuring 29 guntas and Sy.No.112/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas, totally measuring 2 acres 1 guntas of Kowdenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now comes to Bangalore East Taluk (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property), is the ancestral property of plaintiff. The said land was a jodi inam land governed by the provisions of Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, and the same was in occupation and cultivation of the ancestors of plaintiff. It is further contended that during the lifetime of the father of plaintiff, the said Inam Abolition Act came into effect and as per the provisions of the said Act, the suit lands came to be registered in the name of father of plaintiff as kadim tenant by the Special Deputy Commissioner, in Inam Abolition in proceedings No.78/1959-60.

8. It is further contended that the name of the father of plaintiff came to be entered in all the revenue records i.e., RTC from 1974-75 to 1989-90. During the lifetime of father of plaintiff, he obtained the loan from Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore on 5.6.1978, in that connection, created the charge in favour of said bank in respect of the schedule property for availing finance from the bank. At the time of granting the loan, bank officials had visited the spot of the schedule property and verified the scheduled property and after being satisfied about the possession and enjoyment of the property by the father of the plaintiff, had granted the loan. The father of the plaintiff acquired impeachable right, title and interest over the property and in physical possession of the property. During the lifetime of his father, at the oral partition, amongst the family members of the plaintiff, the schedule property was fallen to the share of plaintiff as early as 1984. The other family members were allotted with different lands. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to claim the right, title and interest and protect his possession over the schedule property