Boundaries of property prevail over measurements in land disputes; adverse possession claims require clear pleading and evidence, which were lacking in this case.

ORAL ORDER

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009 passed in RA No.264/2004 by the Court of Fast Track - I, Tumakuru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. OS No.105/1986 was filed by respondent No.1 herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Madhugiri praying to declare his title over the suit schedule properties and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the jurisdictional Civil Court at Koratagere and numbered as OS No.240/1989. In the said suit, defendant No.2 had entered appearance and filed written statement opposing the prayer made in the suit. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed as many as seven issues in OS No.240/1989. On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined before the Trial Court as PW1 to PW3 and 21 documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P21. On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW5 and 07 documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by judgment and decree dated 24.09.1998 partly decreed the said suit and declared that the plaintiffs are owners in lawful possession of the entire extent of Sy.No.67 and in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 20 gutnas in Sy.No.64 and also granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid lands. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 24.09.1998, plaintiffs had filed RA No.264/2004 before the jurisdictional Court at Tumakuru and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009, RA No.264/2004 was allowed and the suit was decreed in its entirety. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court.

4. This Court has admitted this RSA on 04.09.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal:-

"1) Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is perverse in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff to the full extent while wrongly reversing the decree of the Trial Court which granted the decree only to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas?

2) Whether the First Appellate Court failed to consider the evidence of the defendants that they are in possession of 15 guntas of the suit schedule property?"

5. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that defendants have no grievance against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has erred in decreeing the suit in its entirety. The suit schedule consists of two items of properties. The dispute is only with regard to item No.1 property bearing Sy.No.64. In the said property, the extent of land available is only 1 acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre 36 guntas. Therefore, the Trial Court was fully justified in partly decreeing the suit. He submits that the appellants are in possession of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.64 out of 1 acre 36 guntas which is the total extent of the said land. He, accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents/plaintiffs has argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. He submits that insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, there is no dispute. In respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.64 is concerned, under Ex.P1 Sale Deed d