THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 5.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.36/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 3.6.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.211/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) SAGAR.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2012 passed in R.A.No.36 of 2009 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar (for short ‘the first appellate Court’), and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.211 of 1999 dated 03.06.2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Sagar (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is a vacant land measuring 90x21 feet, suit property along with southern vacant land measuring 90x51 feet, originally the said property was owned and possessed by Town Municipal Council, Sagar. There was a house structure built in the southern vacant land by one Gangadhar Bhat prior to 1965. He was in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. The said property was mortgaged in favour of R.S.Pai during 1968. He sold the property in favour of one S.N. Bhaskar Rao under the registered sale deed dated 15.11.1973. Bhaskar Rao in turn sold the said property in favour of the plaintiff under a register sale deed dated 14.05.1979 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. The Town Municipal Council has issued a notice on 04.02.1997 in favour of the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to deposit an amount so as to regularise the unauthorised construction and occupation. After enquiry, the plaintiff learnt that the suit schedule property belongs to TMC, Sagar. During September 1988, plaintiff arranged to construct a new fence and by erecting stone pillars and barbed wires. The defendants interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and denied the title of the plaintiff. Thus, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is also denied that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that issuance of a sale certificate, title and possession certificate are got created. It is contended that filing of suit in O.S.No.484 of 1998 and the municipal Records continued in the name of TMC. It is also contended that the plaintiff approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner directed to rectify the records are denied. It is contended that the defendants No.1 to 4 are the sons of late Panduranga Shet and defendant no. 5 is brother of Panduranga Shet. Panduranga shet s/o Ganapathi shet was in possession of the suit schedule property and sold the same under a unregistered sale deed dated 05.08.1965 in favour of Panduranga shet s/o Anand shet i.e., father of defendants No. 1 to 4. The father of defendants No. 1 to 4 was in possession of the suit schedule property till his demise. After his demise, the defendants came in possession of the suit schedule property and they also perfected their title against the Town Municipal Council, Sagar. Hence,