MEERA BAI Vs. AMBOJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by Prl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S. No.30/1992 which was confirmed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A. No.46/2017. Both the Courts dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to the suit properties by adverse possession.

(2.) The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs' father (Ramoji Rao) and defendants' father (Yalloji Rao). It is claimed that the father of the plaintiffs executed a relinquishment deed dtd. 5/12/1952 in favour of the father of the defendants. However, the possession of the suit properties was not delivered even after the execution of the relinquishment deed and that the plaintiffs' father, mother and the plaintiffs continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Thereafter the father of the plaintiffs' died on 13/3/1981 and the plaintiffs and their mother continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they were growing ragi, paddy and other allied crops in the suit properties and that they were in possession of the suit properties for more than 20 years and thereby had perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession. They alleged that the defendants were strangers to the suit properties and they had no subsisting right, title or interest therein. Nonetheless, the defendants colluding with the revenue officials had managed to get their names entered in the revenue records. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants denied their title over the suit properties and hence sought for a declaration that they had perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession and also sought perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.