PULIYANDA U MADAPPA Vs. MASJID-E-AZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 9.3.2010 passed by Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Mysuru Division, Mysuru, in O.S.2/2008. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the said suit.

(2.) The dispute is in respect of 11/2 cents of land out of 4 cents in Sy. No.3/3 of Block No.2, Virajpet Municipality, Kodagu District. The first defendant in the suit had earlier filed a suit, O.S.42/1965 against one K.P.Krishnan Gurikal seeking the reliefs of declaration of title of the Muslim community in respect of the suit schedule land and possession of the said land from him. Krishnan Gurikal was the absolute owner being in possession of 0.10 acres of land in Sy. No. 3/4, Block No.2 of Virajpet Municipality. The suit land is contiguous to the land in Sy. No.3/4. Krishnan Gurikal did not know that he had encroached upon the land in Sy. No. 3/3 belonging to the Muslim community and that he had already constructed a building in the land belonging to him as also the land in Sy. No.3/3. Therefore, in the suit O.S.42/1965 he denied the encroachment as alleged against him and also set up a hostile title by adverse possession. Since Krishnan Gurikal purchased the property in 1962 and that the suit was filed by the first respondent in the year 1965, the adverse title contended by him was negatived on the ground that 12 years period had not been completed after construction of a building in Sy. No. 3/3. Challenging the judgment in the said suit, Krishnan Gurikal did not file appeal and it became final.

(3.) The first plaintiff is a purchaser of land in Sy. No. 3/4 from Krishnan Gurikkal under a registered sale deed dated 25.2.1975. When he purchased the land in Sy. No. 3/4, he not only took over possession of purchased land but also the building constructed in Sy. No. 3/3. On 31.3.2008, the second plaintiff purchased the property from the first plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that at that time the first plaintiff forgot to inform about the earlier proceedings to the second plaintiff. However, the first plaintiff held the suit property openly and peacefully by setting up hostile title against the real owners including Muslim community at Virajpet and around with animus to make the property as his own.