1. This appeal is by the defendant - appellant under S.100 of Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 in O.S.No.161/2014 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura and the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2018 in R.A.No.84/2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vijayapura by which judgment and decree the suit in O.S.No.161/2014 is confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as per the rank of the parties before the Trial Court.

3. The matter is listed for admission. Heard both counsel for admission of the appeal, reserved and disposed of by this judgment.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit land bearing RS No.28/1A, measuring 6 acres 6 guntas siutated at Arjunagi village, Babaleshwar Hobali, Vijaya - pura Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') and consequential relief of perpetual injunction and in the alternative for the relief of possession of the suit land.

5. Plaintiff' s case in nutshell:
The plaintiff and defendant are brothers. The defendant has gone in adoption to one Sri. Ramappa on 15.05.1983. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner in lawful possession of the suit land having purchased under sale deed dated 27.01.1994 for valuable consideration of Rs.42,000/- from its previous owner. On purchase of the suit land, his name was mutated in the revenue records. As the plaintiff was a petty businessman and required to travel very often, he found it difficult to cultivate the suit land and in the month of April, 2004, as per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff handed over the possession of the land to the defendant on crop sharing basis. On the said basis of crop sharing, the defendant came in permissive possession of the suit land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that for raising the loan the defendant had obtained signature of the plaintiff on blank papers and other forms and the defendant had misutilized the same for mutating his name in the revenue records pertaining to the suit land. The defendant had created a false M.R. entry in the year 2004-05 on the strength of partition deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant has no right to claim the suit land and he cannot acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land.

6. Defendant' s case in brief:
On issuance of suit summons, the defendant appeared before the Court and filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is contended that when the relief of permanent injunction is sought the relief of possession could not have been sought. Further, the defendant contended that he and plaintiff constitute a joint family and both were doing coolie work by taking the lands of others on crop sharing basis. The suit land was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant in the year 1994 in the name of plaintiff, as he was elder member of the family. Even though the land was in the name of plaintiff, the defendant continued to be in joint cultivation and enjoyment of the suit land along with plaintiff. Due to the differences, subsequently the partition took place by memorandum of partition dated 06.04.2004. Based on the said partition, the name of the defendant was entered in the mutation and since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit property is his self - acquired property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the defendant in collusion with the village accountant got created M.R.No.29/2004-2005?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, Defendant has given in adoption on 15.05.1983 to one Ramappa s/o Parasappa Ligadi in view of this, the Defendant has not pr