LAWS(KAR)-2014-6-229

HOLIYAVVA Vs. BASAVANEPPA

Decided On June 25, 2014
Holiyavva Appellant
V/S
Basavaneppa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of remand passed by the learned Judge of the first appellate Court i.e., learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg in R.A.No.3/2013 dated 21.03.2013 is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit bearing O.S.No.29/2006, which was pending on the file of the Civil Judge at Ramdurg. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiff has filed a suit against the Town Municipality, Ramdurg, represented by its President and Chief Officer and three others i.e., appellants herein for the relief of declaration of title on the ground that he has acquired title by way of adverse possession in respect of urban property bearing CTS No.2946/1 measuring 59-36 square mtrs. situated at Junipeth, Ramdurg. The same is described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The said suit has been contested by all the defendants by filing written statement. Appellants herein who are defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed separate statement denying all the material averments and they have called upon the plaintiff to prove the contents of the plaint strictly. As many as 5 issues and one additional issue have been framed by the trial Court.

(3.) Additional issue No.1 deals about the maintainability of the suit for the relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession. The said additional issue No.1 was treated as a preliminary issue and ultimately the trial Court has held that property in question, though belongs to the municipality, is a government property for all practical purpose and therefore the plaintiff is expected to plead that he has been in possession of the property for over a period of 30 years as contemplated under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Ultimately, said issue came to be answered in the affirmative holding that suit is not maintainable, since it has been brought within the statutory period of 30 years.