In a suit for recovery of possession based on encroachment, the burden lies on the plaintiff to provide precise evidence of the specific encroachment and the timing thereof. Failure to prove these, or the use of an incomplete survey report, necessitates the dismissal of such claims.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), RANEBENNUR IN R.A.NO.18/2002, DATED 12.7.07 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE COURT THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., BYADGI IN O.S.NO.56/1991 DATED 15.1.2002, MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CAV JUDGMENT

This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. by plaintiffs/appellants praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 in R.A.No.18/2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Ranebennur and to restore the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2002 passed in O.S.No.56/1991 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Byadagi and to allow this appeal.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit before trial Court praying for declaration that plaintiffs are absolute owners of the encroached portion of 31 guntas and 15 guntas respectively by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in R.S.No.48/2 and 19 guntas by defendant No.2 in R.S.No.49; for possession of the encroached portion of properties and for such other reliefs.

4. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is that suit schedule property Item No.1 bearing Sy.No.48/2 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas and Sy.No.49/1 measuring 3 acres 27 guntas situated at Chikkalli Village, Byadagi Taluk are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and plaintiffs are the owners in possession of it; these properties consist of 2 Mango trees, 3 Neem trees and they were grown by the plaintiffs. Defendants are in possession of Sy.No.48/1A measuring 2 acres 24 guntas, Sy.No.48/1B measuring 2 acres 24 guntas, Sy.No.49/2 measuring 3 acres 27 guntas. Towards western side of the lands of plaintiffs bearing Sy.No.48/1A and 48/1B belonging to defendant Nos.1 and 3 are situated and towards eastern side of the lands of plaintiffs bearing R.S.No.49/1, lands of defendant No.2 are situated. There exist small bunds in between the lands of plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants have demolished the bunds and trespassed upon the lands of the plaintiffs.

Specifically, Defendant No.1 has encroached 31 guntas, Defendant No.3 has encroached 15 guntas in Sy.No.48/2 of the plaintiffs, and Defendant No.2 has encroached 19 guntas in Sy.No.49/1. The plaintiffs demanded defendants to vacate and hand over possession of the encroached portion. But defendants have not vacated. Plaintiffs in compromise have measured and surveyed their lands through Land Survey Office and Haddubastu boundaries of suit schedule properties were fixed. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

5. After service of summons defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement wherein they have denied the plaint averments in toto. They have taken contention that one Mookappa was the original propositus who had 4 sons i.e. Basappa, Channabasappa, Shivappa and Siddappa. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and one Shivappa are the sons of Basappa. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are sons of Shivappa. After death of father of defendants-Basappa, there was partition and at th