PRAKASH Vs. MAHAVEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 521 days in filing this appeal. As to whether any fruitful purpose would be served in ordering for notice on the respondent on I.A.No.I/2015, this Court has scrutinised the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and notices that such exercise of issuing the notice if undertaken by this Court would only be an exercise in futility for the reasons indicated herein below.

(2.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal calling in question the judgment and decree passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, in R.A.No.48/2013 dated 12.01.2014 whereunder appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed in O.S.No.581/2008 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and III JMFC Court, Hubli, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff has perfected his title over suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possession came to be dismissed, had been affirmed.

(3.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he has perfected his title over suit property by virtue of adverse possession and that defendants have lost their right, title and interest over the suit property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering, obstructing with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property. It was contended that suit property is a residential house and was earlier belonging to one Sri Shantappa Padmarajappa Prathamashetty who had on 17.05.1962 mortgaged the same with possession for a sum of Rs.4,000/- to one Sri Bhimappa Mallappa Medleri through a registered deed of mortgage for four years who inturn had transferred the right of possessory mortgage to one Sri Raghavendra Pandurang Naik of Hubli through a registered deed dated 02.08.1971 and he in turn had sold the said possessory mortgage rights to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,500/- with possession on 06.12.1983 and as such, plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the date he purchased Mortgage rights i.e., on 02.08.1971 without any interference and obstruction from anybody muchless from defendants and the name of plaintiff is also entered in the property extract and city survey records of Municipal body. It was also contended that defendant No.4 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and defendant Nos.1 to 3 who had ownership right earlier in the suit property have lost it over the years subsequent to several transaction of possessory mortgage. On account of alleged threats posed by the defendants, plaintiff filed the suit in question for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint and as aforestated.