SRIKANTACHAR Vs. SIDDALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14-4-1975, passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Mysore, in RA No. 2/74, on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31-10 1973, passed by the Munsiff, Nanjangud, in OS No. 356/1971, on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession. Plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the 14 guntas of land mentioned in the plaint schedule and for recovery of the same. He averred that land S. No. 280 of Badanavalu village in Nanjangud taluk, measuring 4 acres 30 guntas including 'Phut Kharab' of 0 2 guntas, originally belonged to one Sidda, son of Kundumana Doddasidda and his wife Madi and they were in possession of the same. They sold the southern 3 acres to the plaintiff for Rs. 300 under a registered sale deed dated 5 12-1932, as per Ex. P 5, and put him in possession. The remaining 1 acre 28 guntas on the northern side was mortgaged by the above said two persons, on 2-11-1937, to one Gulam Hyder and was subsequently sold to the defendant. Plaintiff mortgaged 3 acres of land with possession and got the land redeemed subsequently. About a month prior to the suit, the plaintiff noticed that his land appeared smaller in extent. He got it measured and found that 14 guntas of land on the northern side had been encroached by the defendant and was in his possession. He, therefore, demanded of the defendant to vacate the 14 guntas of land marked ABCD in the plaint sketch, but the defendant did not. Accordingly, plaintiff iastituted the suit for declaration of his title and for possession of 14 gunlas of disputed land.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement. He contended that he had been in possession of the 14 guntas of land ever since his purchase in the year 1949. Even before that his vendor was in possession of it. He further contended that the plaintiff was never put in possession of 14 guntas of land pursuant to the sale deed. Thus he contended that he was openly, adversely and continuously enjoying the 14 guntas of land ever since 1949 and thus he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court raised the following issues, as arising from the pleadings, for its consideration.

(3.) The trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved that he purchased 3 acres of land under Ex. P-5. Further it held that plaintiff was not put in possession of the disputed 14 guntas of land which remained with his vendor and subsequently with defendant. It further held that defendant was by openly, adversely and continuously enjoying the land for more than 14 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession. In that view the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.