Ownership claims must be supported by primary evidence, but secondary evidence can suffice if justified; joint admissions can estop denial of ownership.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2022 passed in O.S.No.80/2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of plaintiffs that the land bearing R.S.No.21, Block No.36, situated in Teredkoppa village, measuring 13 acres 7 guntas, originally belonged to Talawar family. The grandfathers of defendants, namely Shettappa and Dyamappa, sons of Ayyappa Talawar have sold the agricultural land measuring 07 acres 07 guntas in favour of great-grandfather of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and grandfather of plaintiffs No.4 to 14 by name Hanumappa S/o Shivalingappa Bailwad and through its registered sale deed on 21.06.1911 and possession was handed over at the time of the sale. Subsequent sale to the grandfather of the plaintiff, upon the time of grandfather the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit scheduled property.

4. Despite long-standing possession, the plaintiffs' names were not entered in the revenue records and they approached the Assistant Commissioner, who initially ordered effect of mutation of entries in favour of the both plaintiffs and defendants. However, ultimately, only the name of defendants’ were entered. The plaintiffs challenged this before this Court, which remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, while disposing of the matter had observed the plaintiffs seek remedies before the competent Civil Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the property originally belonged to Bhimappa Shettappa Talwar and Shettappa Demappa Talwar and was part of a consolidation scheme. He denied the sale deed dated 21.06.1911 and claimed that the plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit property. The defendants contended that they are the rightful owners and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the pleading, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

ISSUES

i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are absolute owners in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of the defendants?

iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?

iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought?

v) What order or decree?

7. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.7 was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and documents were got marked as Exs.D1 to D6.

8. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the reason that the suit was barred by limitation and the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property. It was held that the plaintiffs failed to prove they were the owners of the suit property. The Trial Court observed in its judgment that originally the land bearing R.S.No.21 was totally measuring 20 acres 11 guntas. Thereafter, the said land was subdivided into Sy.No.21/1 and Sy.No.21/2. Out of total extent, 07 acres 07 guntas were assigned to one Nijappa Bevoor and the remaining 13 acres 04 guntas were in the possession of the d