An appeal is maintainable against a judgment when a formal decree is not drawn. For suits based on title, the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act does not trigger until the defendant successfully establishes hostile adverse possession, which is incompatible with a denial of the plaintiff's title.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09/10/2009 MADE IN R.A.NO.53/2007 FILED BY PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT IN DECREE DATED 09-08-2007 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN DHARWAD), BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN O.S.NO.193/1993 WITH COST IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 08.04.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) by the appellants/defendants No.1 to 4 praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.53/2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dharwad (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) and to confirm the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2007 passed in O.S.No.193/1993 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad (for short, ‘Trial Court’); for court costs and for such other reliefs.

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

3. Plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Trial Court praying for the relief of declaration that plaintiffs No.1 to 11 are absolute owners of suit ‘A’ schedule property; consequential relief of possession; for mesne profits; for court costs and for such other reliefs.

4. Case of plaintiffs before Trial Court in nutshell is that one Jamaluddin Saab Kaus Mudeen Saab Rahiman Saab Anwar was the absolute owner in exclusive possession of suit schedule ‘A’ property bearing CTS No.205 measuring 54 Square Yards consisting of a house situated at Bara Imam Galli, Dharwad having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 19.03.1951 for valuable consideration of ₹200/- from one A.M. Yaragatti and later constructed the house in said property. Said Jamaluddin died on 06.12.1990 leaving behind his wife-plaintiff No.1, children-plaintiffs No.2 to 11. Plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of deceased Jamaluddin who inherited the suit schedule property. Jamaluddin had a younger brother called Abdul Wahab. Being elder brother, Jamaluddin brought Abdul Wahab from Ranebennur to Dharwad for his education, helped him in getting appointment in Government Service. Thereafter, both brothers resided in suit schedule property jointly till 1959-60. Many times there were quarrels between both brothers and litigations in the year 1956-57. After disposal of litigations, both brothers have completely pulled it down, compromised each other and amenable and kept good relationship till their death, because they were the only two brothers residing at Dharwad. Jamaluddin being elder brother and kind hearted person used to consider the matter of his younger brother gratuitously. Jamaluddin's father-in-law-Sayumohamed Ali Begum was having sufficient accommodation for his residence. Hence, Jamaluddin joined his father-in-law and residing at Gandhi Chowk, Dharwad. Plaintiff No.1 is the only daughter to her father. Abdul Wahab was not having any house and was likely to transfer to Dharwad in the year 1959-60. Thus, Jamaluddin granted license to Abdul Wahab for some period to reside in the suit schedule ‘A’ property only out of love and affection as m