The judgment established the principle that long-standing ownership and possession, coupled with the failure of others to assert their rights, can lead to the perfection of title through adverse possession, overriding potential reversionary rights under the Hindu Succession Act.

V. Gopala Gowda, J.— This appeal is filed by the 2nd claimant challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 25.2.2000 passed by the II Additional District Judge in LACA 203 of 1989 in confirming the order dated 16.3.1987 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mysore, urging various legal contentions.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the reference Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 9 acres 9 guntas of dry land in Sy. No. 11/2 and .07 guntas of garden land in Sy. No. 11/1 in all measuring 9 acres and 16 guntas in Sy. No. 11 of Devanur Village was acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Board, Mysore, for formation of house sites by issuing a preliminary notification dated 7.8.1968 and the possession of the land was taken over by the erstwhile CITB, Mysore, on 24.10.1981. The first claimant filed claim petition before the reference Court seeking compensation contending that the land in Sy. No. 11/2 consisting of two items of the property namely 9 acres 2 guntas of dry land and 07 guntas of garden land totally 9 acres 9 guntas was the joint family property of his father eversince he had purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 21.6.1942; that during partition in the year 1947, vide registered partition deed dated 25.8.1947 the property in question fell to his share; that since then he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land till the possession of the property was taken over by the erstwhile CITB. The 2nd claimant appeared as objector claiming to be the exclusive owner of the property in question on the ground that pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge at Mysore in O.S. No. 8 of 1950-51 dated 31.8.1951 marked as Exs.P.32 and P.33 respectively wherein the alienation made by her mother in favour of the father of the first claimant was challenged by her contending that she is entitled to succeed to the property as the reversioner as her mother had a limited interest upon the property in question pursuant to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted and it was held that the sale contracted by her mother was not binding on her except the extent of Rs. 700/- which should be paid by her to the father of the first claimant after the death of her mother. Therefore, she contended that the first claimant has no right upon the property in question for claiming compensation. Since there was a dispute with regard to the claim in respect of the land in question, the land acquisition officer made reference to the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, which is a reference Court and the case was numbered as LAC No. 119 of 1982. The reference Court held that first claimant is the owner of Sy. No. 11/2 measuring 9.02 guntas dry and .07 guntas of garden land and he is entitled for the compensation in respect of the same and since he had not claimed any interest in respect of .07 guntas, the 2nd claimant was held to be entitled for compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd claimant preferred LACA No. 203 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Mysore. After hearing, the said appeal also came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the reference Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd claimant-appellant has preferred this second appeal urging various legal grounds.

4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned order.

5. The reference Court on the basis of the material evidence on record has held that the first claimant has established his ownership and possession over the land in question from 22.8.1947 with reference to the partition deed Ex.P.1 which was being more than 30 years old and the oral evidence of PW-1 adduced on behalf of the first claimant and further with reference to Exs.P-2 to P-8 and Ex.P-12 and 13 the revenue receipts for the year 1947