In property declaration suits, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiffs to establish legal title, which must be supported by adequate evidence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Vijaya M. N., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Plaintiffs have filed the present appeal challenging the validity of the judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as suit property):

A part and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.125/1, measuring 4 acres 17 gt plus kharab of 02 gt situated at Taridal village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and bounded by:

East by – lands of Kunti Basappa and Lakshmidevamma

West by – land of hazi Miani son of Abdul Sattar Sab

North by – lands of Hanumanthappa

South by – lands of Mallanna and others

3. Facts in the nut shell for disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property by contending that one Kempaiah was the common prepositus of the family.

3.2. He had four children namely Narasappa, Muddanna, Obalappa and Chowdappa. All these children are no more and first son of Kempaiah namely Narasappa died leavhing behind his two sons namely Naraseeyappa and Narayanappa. Second son of Kempaiah was left behind by his wife – Ramakka and third son of Kempaiah was left behind by two sons namely Naraisimha Murthy and Basappa. Fourth son of Kempaiah died leaving behind his wife – Chikka Hanumakka, who is the plaintiff No.5.

3.3. It is contended that the suit property was owned and possessed by Kempaiah and after his death, his first son Narasappa got mutated his name in the revenue records from the year 1962 – 1963 to 1982 – 1983.

3.4. It is further contended that the suit property was mortgaged in faovur of Mysore Central Cooperative L. M. Bank. After the death of Narasappa, his sons namely Naraseeyappa and Narayanappa inherited the suit property and they are rustic villagers.

3.5. It is further contended that Subbanna son of Narasimhaiah was the absolute owner and in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.128/1B which is situated adjacent to the suit property.

3.6. After the death of Subbanna, his son Narasimharaju filed an application to get the revenue entries mutated in his name as per the inheritance on 22.04.1983. At that juncture, defendant No.1 has not only mutated the entries in respect of the his ancestral property but also included the suit property without the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

3.7. It is further contended by the plaintiffs that revenue officials without proper verification of the records and rights of the parties, transferred the revenue entries in the name of defendant No.1 but plaintiffs continued in possession of the suit property.

3.8. When defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property in the month of July 2016, plaintiffs furnished the documents and noted that the revenue entries were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 clandestinely and thus, approached the Court for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 4 appeared through their Advocate and filed common written statement denying the plaint averments in toto.

5. According to them, suit property is their ancestral property and after the death of their four fathers, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

6. It is also contended that the suit property was mortgaged by the defendants in favour of Alipura Vyavasaya Sahakara Bank Limited and raised l