This petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the

judgment and decree dated 21.11.2016 passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, in O.S.24/2014,

whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed and the

counter claim made by the defendants is allowed.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

Brief facts of the case are that, the propositus by

name Hanamanthappa had four sons namely Ningappa,

Gangappa, Yallappa and Ramappa. Ningappa died leaving

behind him Mallappa-the plaintiff and three daughters

namely Shivawwa, Karewwa and Ratnawwa. The second son

of the propositus namely Gangappa died leaving behind his

wife Dyamawwa and two sons namely Hanamanth and

Suresh, who are arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3 and

- 3 -

daughter Ningawwa, is not made party to the suit. The 3^rd

and 4^th son of the propositus namely Yallappa and Ramappa

died without any issues. The further case of the plaintiff is

that, the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.33/3+6

measuring 5 acres 8 gunta in which 3 guntas pot kharab

situated at Budarkatti village Bailhongal taluka was a

tenanted land wherein the father of the plaintiff by name

Ningappa and his brother Gangappa were cultivating the suit

schedule land as tenants. The father of the plaintiff and his

brother-Gangappa filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy

right in respect of the suit schedule property under Section

48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal

has granted occupancy rights in favour of the father of the

plaintiff and Gangappa by order dated 03.05.1979 and also

issued Form No.10. Since, the father of the plaintiff and his

brother Gangappa were cultivating the property jointly, the

plaintiff’s father has half share in the property. On

18.03.2014 when the plaintiff has sought for a share in the

suit schedule property, the defendants have refused to give

- 4 -

share of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for

partition and separate possession.

4.

On service of summons, defendants filed written

statement contending that the suit schedule property is

granted in favour father of the plaintiff and his brother

Gangappa. They further contended that on 07.03.1981,

Ningappa, father of the plaintiff, has executed relinquishment

deed in favour of Gangappa and on that basis they have

made a counter claim and sought for declaration to declare

that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule

property by way of adverse possession.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

trial Court framed the following issues:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule

property was jointly granted by the Land Tribunal by

confirming the occupancy right in favour of father of

plaintiff and his brother Gangappa?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, he and

defendants are in joint possession of the suit schedule

property?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitle for half

share in the suit schedule property?

- 5 -

4. Whether the defendants prove that, the father of plaintiff

by name Ningappa had relingquished his half share in the

suit

schedule

property

be

executing

registered

relinquishment deed dated 07/03/1981 as contended in

para 2 of the counter claim?

5. Whether the defendants prove that, they have perfected

their title over the half of suit schedule property by way of

adverse possession?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief as claimed in

the plaint?

7. Whether the defendants are entitle for the relief as

claimed in the counter claim?

8. What order or decree?

6.

To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself

as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1- to P-5. The respondents

have neither adduced any evidence nor marked any

documents.

7.

On appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence on record, the trial Court has answered issue

Nos.1, 4 and 7 in the affirmative and issue Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6

in the