ARUN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERUSED the judgments of the trial Court passed in O.S. No. 221/2006 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No. 73/2008. Appellants were plaintiffs before the trial Court i.e., the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gokak, in O.S. No. 221/2006. They had filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession and for permanent and mandatory injunction. Suit filed against the respondents herein came to be dismissed by a considered judgment dated 03.12.2007. Against the said judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 221/2006 a regular appeal had been filed in R.A. No. 73/2008 before the Court of Prl. District Judge at Belgaum. That appeal has also been dismissed. Hence concurrent findings are called in question before this Court by filing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiffs is that land in Sy. No. 189/13 measuring 13.18 acres in Pamaldinni village, Gokak taluk has been in their possession for more than 30 years and they have been cultivating the said land. It is their case that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and therefore they had sought for the relief of declaration of tide having perfected their title by way of adverse possession.

(3.) WHOEVER wants the relief of declaration having perfected title by way of adverse possession against a Government should necessarily and specifically plead and prove that he or she has had been in possession of the property belonging to the Government for over a period of 30 years openly to the knowledge and adversely to the interest of the Government. Plea of adverse possession is an exception to the general rule. Whoever takes up the plea of adverse possession must prove the same by adducing acceptable evidence.