Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18996

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Geetha K.B., J
Lambani Bhojya Naik – Appellant
Versus
Lambani Kesali Bai – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5140 OF 2008

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mahesh Wodeyar
For the Respondents: H.M. Dharigond, Ravi Hegde, Vinaykumar Bhat

A claim of adverse possession requires the possessor to openly and continuously deny the true owner's title for the statutory period. It is inconsistent with a claim of absolute ownership; thus, a defendant asserting title through a failed deed cannot simultaneously claim title by adverse possession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Scope and limitation - Substantial question of law - Reformulation of law for determination of nature of possession under an invalid deed of transfer. (Para 11, 13)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 65 and 27 - Adverse possession - Requirements - Possession must be hostile, open, continuous, and peaceful (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario) for a statutory period of 12 years - Crucial to establish animus possidendi (hostile intention) in denial of the true owner's title - A plea of adverse possession assumes title lies with another and cannot be claimed by a party asserting independent ownership based on a defective sale deed. (Paras 34, 35, 36, 43, 44)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land, asserting purchase under a registered sale deed. The defendants resisted the suit, claiming title through an earlier sale deed from a different source and alternatively pleading adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, prompting this second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to establish the title of their vendor and could not claim adverse possession because their possession was based on a claim of absolute ownership rather than a hostile denial of the plaintiff's title. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the alleged possession was not open to the knowledge of the true owner for the statutory period.

Issues: The central issues were the legal nature of possession held under an invalid transfer deed, whether the defendants satisfied the requirements for proving adverse possession, and whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming title by adverse possession must prove that their possession was hostile, open, continuous, and in clear denial of the true owner's title for the statutory period. One cannot simultaneously claim absolute ownership through a (defective) title deed and claim title by adverse possession, as the latter requires an admission of the true owner's title.

Result: Appeal allowed; Judgment of the first appellate court set aside; Decree of the trial court confirmed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff claims ownership via 1968 sale; defendants claim title via 1961 sale and adverse possession. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8)
2. parties dispute validity of title and evidence of long-standing physical possession and mutation records. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 28)
3. plea of adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile, open, and continuous possession against the true owner. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

CAV JUDGMENT

This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant/plaintiff praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 in R.A.No.26/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Hospet; consequently to confirm the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.74/1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and J.M.F.C., Hadagalli.

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

3. Plaintiff has filed the suit before trial Court praying for the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property; for possession of suit schedule property directing defendants to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff; for mesne profits at ₹800/- per annum against defendants from 1993, till handing over possession to plaintiff for Court costs and for such other reasons.

4. The case of plaintiff before trial Court in nutshell is that, plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.147-A measuring 4 acres 95 cents situated at Thumbinakeri Village within the jurisdiction of Hadagalli village under the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1968 from its previous owner Chigateri Imambee, wife of Hussainsab, resident of Hirehadagali. Defendant No.1 admitted and signed as witness to said registered sale deed. Plaintiff all along is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property from the date of purchase i.e. from 1993. Plaintiff has got right, title and interest in or over suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no manner of right, title and interest in or over the suit schedule property, but they are illegally and high handedly occupied the suit schedule property since three years and high handedly illegally taking crops every year worth ₹.800/-, excluding costs; therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are liable to repay the mesne profits. Plaintiff has filed criminal case in private complaint No.16/96 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 and one Kesali Bai which is pending for consideration. On 08.09.1992, defendant No.1, clandestinely got his name entered in register of sale deed and record of rights and purchased the suit land from one Sri.Huchi Dodda Guddappa, who is not the real owner of suit schedule property. Defendants are not in possession of suit schedule property at any time, till 1992. The alleged sale deed of defendant No.1 is not binding on plaintiff as he is not party to it. The first defendant's name appeared in record of rights nominally without hearing an enquiry by the revenue authorities. Thus, those entries are not binding on plaintiff. Hence, the suit for appropriate reasons.

5. After filing the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and defendant No.2 filed his written statement, which is being adopted by defendant No.1. In the written statement, defendant No.2 has denied the entire plaint averments including the purchase of suit schedule property by plaintiff in the year 1968, he is one of the attestors to it, etc. He contended that, at no point of time, plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property up to 1993 as contended by him. Defendant No.1 has purchased suit schedule property and Sy.No.147-B measuring 3 acres 90 cents which are situated in one block from the erstwhile owner Sri.Huchi Dodda Guddappa for a sum of ₹.600/- under a registered sale deed dated 06.03.1961. Soon after such purchase, Patta Book is mutated into the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18996

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAGeetha K.B., JLambani Bhojya Naik – AppellantVersusLambani Kesali Bai – RespondentREGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5140 OF 2008

Cases Referred (3)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Geetha K.B., J
Lambani Bhojya Naik – Appellant
Versus
Lambani Kesali Bai – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5140 OF 2008