SHIDRAMAYYA Vs. RACHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the plaintiff in original suit No. 162 of 1986 in the court of the munsiff, india, is the appellant. The suit is filed by him for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the respondent. The respondent filed original suit No. 92 of 1986 for the same reliefs basing his title through neelavva. Both the suits were tried together and were disposed by a common judgment. Original suit No. 162 of 1989 was dismissed and original suit No. 92 of 1986 was decreed by rejecting the claim of the appellant and holding that the respondent is the absolute owner of the suit properties. The appellant preferred appeals regular appeal nos. 26 and 27 of 1994 against the judgment and decrees of the trial court. The learned judge dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the findings of the trial court. Regular second appeal No. 963 of 1995 is filed against regular appeal No. 26 of 1994 and regular second appeal No. 964 of 1995 is filed against regular appeal No. 24 of 1994.

(2.) the subject-matter of both the suits is survey No. 49/2 bmeasuring 4 acres 21 guntas and a house property bearing si. No. 211 (property No. 119) measuring 25 x 13 situated within the town limits of chadachan. It is not in dispute that the appellant had gone in adoption to the family of kallayya. It was also admitted that irayya was adopted son of kallayya. The contention of the respondent was that the appellant lost his rights in the family in which he was born. The appellant claimed that nilawwa has relinquished her right, title and interest over the suit property in his favour. In support of his claim he relied on documents in exhibits d-l to d-23. It is not in dispute that nilawwa was the absolute owner of the suit property. Both the appellants and the respondent claimed possession of the suit property. The trial court held that the appellant failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit property as he did not produce his title deed. The appellate court agreed with the finding of the trial court as no relinquishment deed was produced.

(3.) as contended by Sri albal, entries in revenue record srequire no registration as laid down by the Supreme Court in Digambar Adhar Patil v Devram Girdhar Patil (Dead) by L.rs. And another. These entries in revenue records in exhibit d-7 to d-9 are only evidence of possession, but they do not confer any title on the appellant, for which, he has to fall back on the family settlement, as contended by Sri albal.