R. CHANNAPPA Vs. SHAMAIAH SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant -plaintiff and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1(a) and (b), on admission.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has submitted that the appellant filed the suit before the trial Court for the relief of declaration that plaintiff has become the owner of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and also for the consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property and also encumbering the same in any manner. That appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since from the year 1970 and to show his possession he has produced record of rights before the trial Court. Even though in the record of rights in cultivators column, name of the appellant was appearing, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not at all taken this aspect into consideration and ultimately, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court. He has also submitted that the material placed by the plaintiff by way of oral as well as documentary evidence were not properly considered by both the Courts below and hence, there is an illegality committed by both the Courts below in dismissing the suit of the appellant - plaintiff. It is submitted that there are serious questions of law and facts to be considered by this Court in the appeal and hence, appeal is to be admitted.

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel for respondent No.1(a) and (b) during the course of his arguments has submitted that the plaintiff has deliberately failed to prove that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the year 1970 and he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Mere entry in the record of rights for some period will not show that plaintiff was cultivating the land and he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and have rightly come to the conclusion to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. No illegality has been committed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. There are no valid and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere into the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Hence, he submitted to dismiss the appeal.