N NAGAPPA Vs. SANNA NINGEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the plaintiff in o.s. No. 21 of 1980 in the court of the munsiff at channarayapatna is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of his title to 10 guntas of land in a portion of survey number 363/4, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

(2.) the suit was contested by the respondents, alleging that they are in adverse possession of the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant failed to prove his title and that the respondents have made out a case of adverse possession. The appeal filed by the appellant before the civil judge, holenarasipura in r.a. No. 12 of 1987 was dismissed as barred by Section 132 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 ('the act' for short), though the learned judge held that the appellant has established his title to the suit land and that the respondents have failed to make out their case of adverse possession.

(3.) learned counsel for the appellant contends that the dismissal of the suit merely on the ground that the appellant failed to file the certified copies of records along with the plaint was an oppressive application of the provisions of the law, which contemplated giving of reasonable time by the court for filing such certified copies. Learned counsel contends that in fact, such documents were filed along with i.a. No. Ii in the first appellate court and the same was rejected on technical grounds. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that it is mandatory that the plaint should be rejected when the records are not annexed with the plaint as required under Section 132 of the act. The lower appellate court considered the evidence on record and came to a different conclusion that the appellant established his title to the suit land. The learned judge found that the respondents have failed to prove that their possession of the suit land is adverse as none of the ingredients of adverse possession were established by them. In view of these findings, it was open to the learned judge to have decreed the suit, but for the fact that records mentioned in Section 132 of the ACT were not annexed to the plaint. The provisions of Section 132 are special provisions and are not controlled by Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. the provisions of Section 132 can be applied without reference to the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 132 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the plaintiff or applicant in every suit or application relating to land situated in any area to which chapter 11 of the ACT applies, to annexe to the plaint or application, a certified copy of an entry in the record of rights or register of mutation relevant to such land. Under sub-section (2), if the plaintiff or applicant fails to annexe the said document to the plaint copy, the plaint or application shall be rejected. It is open to the court to grant a reasonable time to the plaintiff or the applicant to produce such a certified copy within the time granted by the court. From a reading of the entire section, it is clear that it is not meant to be used as a measure of punishment. If the plaintiff or an applicant is possessed of the certified copy of the record or files the register of mutation relevant to the land, he should be afforded a reasonable time to produce the same.