These two captioned second appeals are filed by

the defendants as well as plaintiff.

2.

RSA

No.200378/2014

is

filed

by

the

defendants, while RSA No.200325/2014 is filed by

plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought relief of declaration

to declare her as owner on the ground that she has

perfected her title by way of adverse possession and

consequential relief of injunction was sought based on

an agreement to sell dated 12.02.1952. The trial

Court

dismissed

the suit by holding that the

defendants have succeeded in establishing their title

based on sale deed dated 26.09.1990 executed by

Gulam Nabi. While answering additional issue No.1,

the trial Court held that defendant Nos.4 to 6 have

succeeded in establishing the title of Gulam Nabi. The

appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree

by recording finding that defendant Nos.4 to 6 have

6

failed to establish title of Gulam Nabi under whom

defendant Nos.4 to 6 are asserting title. The appellate

Court held that the plaintiff though not entitled for

relief of declaration of title by way of adverse

possession, the voluminous documents placed on

record clearly establishes and proves that the plaintiff

is in lawful possession. Consequently, the appeal is

allowed in part granting injunction against the

defendants.

3.

The defendants have questioned the grant

of injunction by the appellate Court, while the plaintiff

has filed second appeal in RSA No.200325/2014

feeling aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and

decree of the Courts below in declining to grant relief

of declaration.

4.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

7

5.

The plaintiff has instituted the present suit

seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The

subject matter of the suit is agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.418 measuring 10 acres 7 guntas. The plaintiff

claims that suit land originally belonged to one

Venkatesh S/o Appaji. It is specific case of the

plaintiff that the erstwhile owner Venkatesh executed

an agreement to sell on 12.02.1952 and received

entire sale consideration of Rs.500/- and possession

was delivered to the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff

contended that erstwhile owner Venkatesh died in

1954 and therefore, his father could not secure sale

deed. However, the plaintiff claimed that his father

was in possession of the suit land and his possession

later become hostile animus to that of owner and his

father has perfected the title by way of adverse

possession. The plaintiff also contended that his father

was paying land revenue to the Government and

8

hence, claimed to be in exclusive possession. Hence,

the present suit.

6.

Per contra, defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed

written statement and stoutly denied the entire

averments made in the plaint. Defendant Nos.1 to 3

contended that late Gulam Nabi S/o Khasim Ali was

the original owner and he has sold the suit land to

defendant Nos.1 to 3 under registered sale deed.

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 further seriously disputed the

agreement of sale set up by the plaintiff and further

pleaded that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended

that the plaintiff has not impleaded the vendors and

has also not challenged the sale deed executed by

Gulam Nabi through GPA holder in favour of defendant

Nos.1 to 3. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 have also set up

defence in the same vein.

Defendant Nos.4 to 6

contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 who have

9

acquired valid right and title have in turn sold the

portion in their favour and they are in possession.

7.

The plaintiff and defendants have led oral

and documentary evidence to substantiate their claim.

The trial Court having assessed oral and documentary

evidence answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative.

The trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to

prove her title over the suit schedule property. The

trial Court also held that the plaintiff has filed to prove

that she has perfected her title by way of adverse