B.S. SIDDARAJU Vs. SIDDEGOWDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant -plaintiff against the respondents -defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandya in R.A. No. 131/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mandya in O.S. No. 39/1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case of the appellant plaintiff before the trial court was that originally, two acres of land in Sy. No. 14 of Dodda Banasavadi was granted to Kenchegowda by Assistant Commissioner, Madya Sub -division, by order dated 8.1.1964. Under the said grant, Kenchegowda paid the upset price and saguvali chit dated 31.1.1964 was issued to him and he was put into possession of the said property. He was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Pursuant to that, Kenchegowda sold the said property in favour of one Manchegowda of Keelara village under the registered sale deed dated 13.3.1975 for valuable consideration and delivered the possession of the property to Manchegowda. The survey authorities measured the land and fixed the boundaries by ascertaining new survey No. 154 which is the suit schedule property. There was some discrepancy on the revenue sketch and also the boundaries mentioned in the sketch. The same was corrected by the competent revenue and survey authorities by assigning the new number. The plaintiff purchased the said property from Manchegowda under registered sale deed dated 19.4.1994 and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Since form the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff learnt that his vendor had filed a suit for bare injunction against the defendant and two others in O.S. No. 232/1978 and the same was dismissed on 18.1.1994, against which plaintiff's vendor filed an appeal in R.A. No. 18/1984 and the same was also dismissed on 12.9.1986. Then, RSA was preferred in No. 28/1987. While dismissing the RSA, this Court made an observation that it is open to the plaintiff i.e., the vendor of the plaintiff, to establish his title and in such event, finding recorded in the earlier suit does not come in the way and does not operate as res judicata . It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest over the property and they were never in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Taking undue advantage of the previous judgment and decree, the defendants were attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the possession. Hence, he filed the suit. Defendants filed their written statement denying all the plaint allegations except about the legal proceedings between the plaintiff's alleged vendor Manchegowda and the first defendant and others. The defendants contended that Kenchegowda is a fictitious person invented by the plaintiff. Manchegowda was never in possession and enjoyment of two acres of land. The 1st defendant and the father of other defendants occupied the suit schedule property during the year 1950 and since from that date, they were in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. No eviction proceedings were initiated against the defendants. Hence the question of dispossessing the plaintiff's vendor's vendor or any other person from the property does not arise. The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to grant the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff's vendor. The alleged grant in favour of Kenchegowda is not in respect of suit schedule property. Hence, identity of the property is in dispute. The alleged sale deed dated 19.4.1994 would not create any right, title or interest to the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As on the date of the suit, the defendants have already perfected their title over the suit schedule property. The suit is barred by time. Hence, sought to dismiss the suit.

(3.) WHETHER the defendants prove that they have perfected their title by adverse possession over the suit schedule property?