Karnataka High Court

Shri B S Nanjundappa vs Shri Anjinappa S/O Narasimhappa on 4 January, 2022

Bench: N S Gowda

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

              R.S.A. No.2776/2006 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

       SHRI. B.S.NANJUNDAPPA,
       S/O LATE B.SOMASHEKARAPPA,
       SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.:

1(i)   SMT. RUDRAMMA,
       W/O B.S.NANJUNDAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
       GANGADHARAPURA,
       BASAVABHAVANA BACK SIDE,
       DODDABALLAPURA(T)
       BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

1(ii) B.N.NATARAJ,
      S/O B.S.NANJUNDAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
      R/AT OPPOSITE SUGAR FACTORY,
      B H ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR,
      CHIKABALLAPUR POST - 561 208.

1(iii) B N BHRAMARAMBHA,
       W/O MANJUNATH,
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
       COURT ROAD,
       DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.
                                      ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. APARNA.N., ADV., FOR GKM ASSOCIATES)
                             2




AND:

       SHRI.ANJINAPPA,
       S/O NARASIMHAPPA,
       SINCE DECEASED BY LRs.:

1(a) SHRI TIPPANNA,
     S/O LATE ANJINAPPA,

       DIED--NO CLASS-I HEIR
       R-1(b) IS CLASS-II HEIR,
       WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD.

1(b) SMT.LAKSHMAMMA,
     D/O ANJINAPPA,
     W/O SHRI SANJEEVAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     E DIVISION, UPPARA COLONY,
     GOWRIBIDANUR - 562 101.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(R-1(b) IS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR R-1(a)
     WHO IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

       THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 07.07.2006
PASSED IN R.A. No.146/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
SESSIONS    JUDGE,   PRESIDING   OFFICER,   FAST   TRACK
COURT-V, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING     THE   JUDGMENT    AND    DECREE     DATED:
12.07.2002 PASSED IN O.S.No.547/1993 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., GOURIBIDANUR.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                          JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff

B.S.Nanjundappa.

2. Nandjundappa instituted the suit seeking for a

declaration that he was the owner in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he also

sought for the consequential relief of perpetual

injunction.

3. The suit property was a vacant site situated at

Karekalla Halli Branch Town, Gowribidanuru (E-Division),

bearing Municipal Assessment No.2103, measuring East

to West: 58 feet, and North to South: 30 feet.

4. It was the case of Nanjundappa that the suit

schedule property was a part of the land bearing

Sy.No.139/2A I(b) and 139/2F measuring 22'X30' and

0.01 gunta respectively. He stated that this property had

been purchased from Sri.Venkata Laxmamma wife of

M.Rangappa under the registered sale deed dated

14.08.1991. He stated that he had also got this land

converted for being used for non-agricultural purposes

i.e., for constructing a residential premises under an

order dated 20.02.1993. He stated that the Municipality

had also allotted a Municipal Assessment Number to this

converted land after collection of the required

betterment charges.

5. He stated that originally the property had been

acquired by his vendor's husband M.Rangappa under two

registered sale deeds dated 11.11.1965 and 10.11.1965.

The sale deed dated 10.11.1965 was in respect of the

land bearing Sy.No.139/2F measuring 0.01 gunta and

the sale deed dated 11.11.1965 was in respect of the

land bearing Sy.No.139/2A I(b) measuring 22'X30'. It

was stated that after the death of Rangappa, his wife

VenkataLaxmamma has succeeded to the said property

and the Khata was also transferred in her name, and he

had acquired valid title. He stated that as the

defendants sought to interfere with his possession he

was constrained to approach the Court with the suit.

6. On service of summons, the defendants, who were

the husband and wife, entered appearance and

contested the suit. The contention put forth was, the

plaintiff was not entitled for any relief since the

defendants were in possession of the suit property for

more than twenty years and they had constructed a hut

measuring 35'X30' and were living there without any

obstruction.

7. It was stated that the property originally belonged

to one Gangappa, who had sold it to Chennabi under a

sale deed dated 05.08.1972 and Chennabi had, in turn,

sold it to one K.V.Ashwathaiah. It was stated that the

defendants were in possession of the property measuring

35'X30' by constructing a hut. A statement was also

made that the defendants had perfected the title by way

of adverse possession against the true owners.

8. The trial court on consideration of the pleadings,

framed five issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, five

witnesses were examined, including the plaintiff who was

examined as PW-1, and ten documents were marked on

behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants,

defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW-1 and two

more witnesses were examined on his behalf. In all,

eleven documents were marked on behalf of the

defendants.

9. The trial court, on analysis of the evidence adduced

before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had

failed to prove his title and possession over the suit

schedule property and he had also failed to prove that

there was interference with his possession by the

defendants. The trial court concluded that the

defendants had proved the construction of a hut on the

land measuring 35'X30'. The trial court accordingly

dismissed the suit.

10. To come to this conclusion, the trial court, after

examining the two sale deeds dated 10.11.1965 and

11.11.1965, which were the sale deeds under which the

plaintiff's vendor's husband had purchased the property,

indicated that a total extent of property measuring

62'X72' had been purchased, whereas, the suit schedule

indicated that the suit schedule property was only

58'X30'. The trial court concluded that even though the

sale deed had been proved, the measurements indicated

in the plaint schedule were completely different and no

independent witnesses had been examined to prove his

possession over the suit schedule property.

11. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal.

The appellate court also concluded that if the extent of

both pieces of land purchased under registered sale

deeds at Exs.P-9 and 10 were combined, it would

amount to purchasing the land totally measuring

62'X72', but the suit property was only land measuring

58'X30'. The appellate court took the view that the

measurements put forth by the plaintiff did not tally and

therefore, the trial court was justified in dismissing the

suit.

12. Being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the

present second appeal has been preferred.

13. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the

following substantial questions of law:

"1) Whether the courts below have erroneously understood the extent of the property mentioned in documents Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 while considering the size of the same in relation to the extent mentioned in Ex.P.1 and in that circumstance as to whether courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff?

2) Whether the courts below have committed an error and whether there is perversity in the manner of appreciation of the evidence in coming to the conclusion that the defendants have established their right over the suit property under Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.2?"

14. The fact that the plaintiff purchased the suit

schedule property under the registered sale deed was

not in serious dispute. In order to prove the title of the

plaintiff, two sale deeds of the plaintiff's vendor's

husband were produced i.e., the sale deeds dated

10.11.1965 and 11.11.1965 (Exs.P-10 and 9

respectively). Ex.P-10 indicated that an extent of 0.01

gunta in Sy.No.139/2F was purchased. The relevant

portion of the sale deed Ex.P-10 reads as follows:

"¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ CgÀªv À öÉÛ ÊzÀ£ÃÉ E¸À« £ÀªA É §gï ªÀiÁºÉ vÁjÃRÄ ºÀvÀÛg° À è UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ mË£ï£À°g è ÀÄªÀ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀz À À ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ ªÀÄÄ¤±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà£ª À g À À ªÀÄUÀ jmÉÊgïØ CVæP¯ À ïZÀgï JPÀìm£ É ïë£ï D¦üÃ¸Àgï gÀAUÀ¥£ Àà ª À j À UÉ EzÉÃ UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ mË£ï PÀgPÉ ¯ À ïºÀ½î ¨ÁæAZï mË£ï £À°g è ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¸À¯ïä£ï zÀ¸V ÀÛ j ¸ÁºÉÃ§gÀ ªÀÄUÀ C§ÄÝ¯ï ºÀ«ÄÃzï ¸ÁºÉÃ¨ï §gÉ¹PÉÆlÖ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ CgÀªv À ÉÆA Û §vÀ£ Û ÃÉ E¹é r¸ÉA§gï vÁjÃRÄ E¥Àv à ÉÛgq À g À ® À Äè UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¸À¨ï gÉf¸ÁÖçgïgÀªg À À D¯ï RAzÀ£A É iÀÄ JAlÄ£ÀÆgÀ LªÀvÁÛªÀÄÆgÀ£É ªÁ®ÆåA ªÀÄÆªÀvÉÆÛA§vÀÄÛ £À®ªÀv£ ÀÛ É ¥ÀÄlUÀ¼° À è JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ£ÀÆgÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀ£É £ÀA§jUÉ jf¸ÀÖçgï CVgÀÄªÀ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ EzÉÃ

UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ mË£ï£À°ègÀÄªÀ ºÁ®Ä ªÀÄvÀ UÀAUÀ¥¤ Àà AzÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥Àqz É ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢Ãü £Á£ÀÄ¨sª À z À ° À ègÀÄªÀ EzÉÃ UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ PÀgÉPÀ¯ï ºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð MAzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ ªÀÄÆªÀvÀÆAÛ ¨sÀv£ ÀÛ É ¸À¨ï JgÀqÀ£É J¥sï JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ ºÀ¢£Á®ÄÌ UÀÄAmÉUÉ DPÁgÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä G¼Àî d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ ¥ÀÆªÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ £À®ªÀvÀÄÛ Cr, GvÀgÛ À zÀQët £À®ªÀvÉÛgÀqÀÄ Cr ªÀÅ¼Àî eÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢, ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ ªÀÄzsÀÄVj gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ £ÀAd¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ UÀAUÀ¥Àà£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ, GvÀgÛ ÀPÉÌ UÀAUÁzsÀgÁZÁj ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä¼À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ, zÀQëtPÉÌ N§¼À¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¦gÀªÀÄä£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ, F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄUÉ UËªÀgÉäÃAmï LzÀÄ£ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÆ§®UÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀ UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ¸À¨ï gÉf¸ÁÖçgïgÀªg À À gÉÃSï £ÀUz À ÁV vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àzj À ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÃÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢Ãü £À¥q À É¹gÀÄvÉÃÛ £É.

PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥ÉÊQÌ GvÀgÛ ÀzÀ PÀqÉ gÉÆÃrUÁV JAlÄ Cr, zÀQëtzÀ PÀqÉ zÁjUÁV £Á®ÄÌ Cr ©lÄÖ, ¥ÀÆªÀð - ¥À²ÑªÀÄ £À®ªÀvÀÄÛ Cr, GvÀgÛ À - zÀQët ªÀÄÆªÀvÀÄÛ Cr eÁUÀz° À è ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÉÆ¼ÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ EzÀg° À è zÀÉÆgÉAiÀÄ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ d®, vÀgÀÄ, ¥ÁµÀt¢ ¤¢ü CµÀÖ ¨sÉÆÃUÀ vÉÃd ¸ÁéªÀÄåAUÀ½UÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ zÁ£À¢ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ dvÀÄµÀÖAiÀÄPÀÆÌ ¤ÃªÉÃ ¨ÁzsÀågÁV C£ÀÄ¨s« À ¸ÀvPÀ ÀÌzÀÄ. F £ÀA§j£À C¼ÀvÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ UÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀÄ ¥Àq¢ É gÀÄªÀ JgÀqÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ£ÀÆgÀ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀ£É PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉÃ. ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ F ¸ÀéwÛUÉ

¸ÀA§Azs¥ À ÀlÖ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ zÁR¯ÉUÁV PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ JA§ÄzÁV £À£Àß RÄzÀÄÝ gÁf¬ÄAzÀ §gÉ¹PÉÆlÖ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥Àvæ.À "

(emphasis supplied)

15. The sale deed dated 11.11.1965 which is produced

as Ex.P-9 was in relation to a piece of property

measuring 22'X30' situated in Sy.No.139/2A. The

relevant portion of the sale deed Ex.P-9 reads as follows:

"¸À£ï ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÉÊ£ÀÆgÀ CgÀªv À öÉÛ ÊzÀ£ÃÉ E¸À« £ÀªA É §gï ªÀiÁºÉ vÁjÃRÄ ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀg° À è UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ mË£ï£À°g è ÀÄªÀ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀz À À ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ ªÀÄÄ¤±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà£ª À g À À ªÀÄUÀ jmÉÊgïØ CVæP¯ À ïZÀgï JPÀìm£ É ïë£ï D¦üÃ¸Àgï gÀAUÀ¥£ Àà ª À j À UÉ EzÉÃ UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ mË£ï £À°ègÀÄªÀ ºÁ®Ä ªÀÄvÀzÀ fgÁ¬ÄÛ PÀ¸ÀÄ©£À £ÀAd¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÆªÀvÉÛÃ¼ÀÄ ªÀµð À zÀ UÀAUÀ¥Àà §gÉ¹PÉÆlÖ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ MA¨sÊÉ £ÀÆgÀ LªÀvÃÉÛ Al£É E¹é DUÀµÀÄÖ ªÀiÁºÉ vÁjÃRÄ E¥ÀàvÉÆA Û zÀg® À Äè EzÉÃ UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ mË£ï£À G¥ÀàgÀ £ÀAdÄAqÀ¥àÀ ªÀUÉÊgÉÃgÀªÀjAzÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥Àqz É ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢Ãü £Á£ÀÄ¨sª À z À À°g è ÀÄªÀ EzÉÃ UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ PÀgÉPÀ¯ï ºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð MAzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ ªÀÄÆªÀvÆ À AÛ §vÀ£ Û É ¸À¨ï JgÀqÀ£É RÄ¶Ì JgÀqÀÄ JPÀgÉ ºÀ¢£Á®ÄÌ UÀÄAmÉUÉ DPÁgÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä G¼Àî d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ £À£ÀUÉ PÀæAiÀÄªÁVgÀÄªÀ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ ºÀ¢£ÉAlÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ

¥ÉÊQ F ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ £Á£ÀÄ EvÀgÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ eÁvÁ. ¤ªÀÄUÉ F ¢£À PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆªÀð ¥À²ÑªÀÄ E¥ÀàvgÉÛ ÀqÀÄ Cr, GvÀgÛ À zÀQët ªÀÄÆªÀvÀÄÛ Cr G¼Àî d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢ ¥ÀÆªÀðPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤£Éß C§ÄÝ¯ï ºÀ«ÄÃzï ¸ÁºÉÃ§jAzÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ G½¹PÉÆArgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ GvÀgÛ ÀPÉÌ UÀAUÁzsÀgÁZÁj ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ PÀªÀÄ®ªÀÄä£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ, zÀQëtPÉÌ N§¼À¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¦gÀªÀÄä£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ, F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀÄªÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß F ¢£À ¤ªÀÄUÉ UËªÀgÉäÃAmï £Á®ÄÌ£Æ À gÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ½UÉ ±ÀÄzÀÞ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÆ§®UÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ¸ÉÃj ¸À¨ï jf¸ÁÖçgï gÀªg À À gÉÃSï £ÀUz À ÁV vÉUz É ÀÄ PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Àzj À ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß F ¢£ÀªÃÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢Ãü £À ¥Àr¹jvÉÛÃªÉ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ EzÀg° À è zÀÉÆgÉAiÀÄ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ d®, vÀgÀÄ, ¥ÁµÁuÁ¢ü, ¤¢ü, ¤PÉÃ¥ ó ,À CµÀÖ ¨sÉÆÃUÀ vÉÃd ¸ÁéªÀÄåAUÀ½UÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ zÁ£À¢ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ dvÀÄµÀÖAiÀÄPÀÆÌ ¤ÃªÉÃ ¨ÁzsÀågÁV C£ÀÄ¨s« À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß RÄzÀÄÝ ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃgÁf¬ÄAzÀ §gÉ¹PÉÆlÖ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ."

(emphasis supplied)

16. As could be seen from the above deeds, Exs.P-9

and 10, both the properties were situated abutting each

other. In Ex.P-9, the eastern boundary is shown as

property which the plaintiff had purchased from Abdul

Hamid. In Ex.P-10, which was dated 10.11.1965, the

western property is shown as Gangappa's land.

Admittedly, Gangappa was the vendor of Rangappa i.e.,

the plaintiff's vendor's husband.

17. The schedule to Ex.P-10 also indicates that on the

northern side, an extent of 8 feet has been set apart for

road and on the southern side, an extent of 4 feet had

been set aside for the purpose of a lane. In fact, Ex.P-10

indicates that the total extent is 40'X42'. If 8 feet that is

mentioned in the sale deed on the northern side towards

the road and 4 feet towards the lane on the southern

side are excluded, the total length of the property would

stand reduced to 30 feet [i.e., 42'-(8'+4')=30'].

18. In other words, the plot measuring 40'X30' was

purchased under Ex.P-10 and this was immediately

followed by the purchase of another plot lying to the

west of this plot measuring 22'X30'. Thus, if the width of

both the properties are measured together, it would

amount to a property measuring 62'X30'.

19. The plaintiff purchased this property under Ex.P-1.

In Ex.P-1 the extent mentioned is 30'X62'. The schedule

to the sale deed indicates that to the east of this

property was Madhugiri road; towards the west was the

remaining land of the vendor; to the north of this

property, it has been shown that the road was existing

and towards the south, the property of Gouramma is

shown.

20. A comparison of the schedule of Ex.P-1 i.e., the

sale deed of the plaintiff and the sale deeds of the

plaintiff's vendor's husband i.e., Exs.P-9 and 10 would

indicate that the property abutting Madhugiri road to the

extent of 62'X30' had been purchased by the plaintiff.

This purchase is also acknowledged by the municipal

authorities by registering the Khata in favour of the

plaintiff and before that by registering the Khata in

favour of Rangappa--the plaintiff's vendor's husband and

after his death in the name of the plaintiff's vendor.

21. The plaintiff after purchasing the property had also

obtained the permission from the revenue authorities for

using the said land for non-agricultural purposes and

that has been evidenced by Ex.P-7. In this Conversion

Certificate also the property has been indicated as a

property measuring 22'X30' and 0.01 gunta and that is

as per the sale deed at Ex.P-1. These facts clearly

establish that the plaintiff had acquired title over the suit

schedule property.

22. As against this documentary evidence, the

defendants, initially, pleaded in the written statement

that the property had been purchased by Ashwathaiah,

but throughout, the defendants were in possession of the

property measuring 35'X30'. In other words, in the

pleadings it was not the case of the defendants that the

defendants had purchased the suit schedule property.

They also did not set up any title under any specific

instrument. In fact, they set up a plea of adverse

possession against the true owners.

23. However, during the course of their evidence, the

defendants put forth the plea that they had purchased a

property measuring 35'X30' under a registered sale deed

dated 28.06.1993. They contended that a piece of

property measuring 30'X35' had been sold by

K.V.Ashwathaiah Shetty in favour of one Thippaiah S/o.

Narasimhaiah. They claimed that this Thippaiah was

none other than their own son.

24. However, Ex.D-1, the sale deed indicates that

Thippaiah who had purchased the property was the son

of Narasimhaiah, whereas the defendant No.1 is

admittedly the son of Anjanappa. In the light of this

indisputable fact, the contention of the defendants that

their son had purchased plot measuring 30'X35' cannot

be accepted since Thippaiah, as described in Ex.D-1/sale

deed, is stated to be one Thippaiah S/o. Narasimhaiah.

25. In view of the fact that the defendants did not

establish their title in a manner known to law and

further, having regard to the plea of adverse possession

taken up, it is obvious that the defendants did not have

any title over the suit schedule property at all.

26. It is also pertinent to state here that the defendant

No.1 during the course of his cross-examination stated

as follows:

" ... £Á£ÀÄ FUÀ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 35 Cr ¥ÀÆ-¥À eÁUÀ £À£U À É ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É CzÀgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢gÀÄªÀ RÄ®è eÁUÉAiÀÄÄ £À£U À É ¸ÉÃjgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É. ¥ÀÆªÀð ¢QÌUÉ EgÀÄªÀ 15 Cr eÁUÀ £À£ÀßzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀÄr¸À®£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆ- ¥À:20 CrUÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ PÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. EzÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ EgÀvPÀ ÀÌAvÀºÀ 15 CrUÀ¼À eÁUÀ £À£U À É ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÀz Û .É £À£Àß 35 CrUÀ¼µ À ÄÀ Ö ¥ÀÆªÀð ¢QÌUÉ eÁUÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ gÀAUÀ¥Àà£À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ §gÀÄvÀz Û .É D d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. CzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸Àªð É £ÀA§gï EvÀÄÛ FUÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢ J£ï.J. ªÀiÁr¹gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. CzÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð £À£U À É UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ D eÁUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¸Àzj À eÁUÉAiÀÄÄ CAzÁf£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀÆ-¥À 60 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, G-zÀ 30 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. CPÀgÀ ZÉPÀÄÌ§A¢ ºÉÃ¼À®Ä §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ..."

27. As could be seen from the said deposition, the

defendant No.1 categorically stated that the property of

Rangappa was situated next to the property of the

defendants, which measures 35 feet. This admission

itself clearly indicated that the property being claimed by

the defendant No.1 was different than the property

claimed by the plaintiff.

28. It may also be pertinent to state here that

Rangappa referred to by the defendant No.1 is none

other than the husband of the plaintiff's vendor. It is

therefore clear that the defendant No.1 admitted that

the plaintiff's vendor's husband did own the property

beyond the extent of 35' of the property of defendant

No.1.

29. The defendant No.1 had also stated as follows:

" ..... JA.gÀAUÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DvÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖAvÀºÀ d«Ä£ÀÄUÀ¼° À è £Á£ÀÄ ¸Áé¢Ãü £ÀvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£U À É CzÀgÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C¢üPÁgÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. 1991gÀ°è ¸Àzj À d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 1993gÀ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¸Àzj À d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ vÀº¹ À Ã¯ÁÝgï

UËjÃ©zÀ£ÀÆjUÉ J£ï.J. ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛg.É F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ vÀPg À ÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°¹ è ¢ÝgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £À£U À É ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ D §UÉÎ w½¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛg.É £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁdÆzÁgÀ£V À zÀÝjAzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ J£ï.J. ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£U À É w½¸À¨ÃÉ PÁVvÀÄÛ DzÀgÉ £À£U À É w½¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ....."

30. A reading of the said deposition would also go to

show that the defendant No.1 admitted that he was a

neighbour and this implies that the property claimed by

him and the property claimed by the plaintiff were

completely different and distinct. This being the factual

situation, the trial court has committed a serious error in

coming to the conclusion that the total extent of the

property purchased under Exs.P-9 and 10 was 61'X72'.

31. The affirmation of this finding by the appellate

court would also be, therefore, incorrect. As stated

above having regard to the description of the properties

in the schedules in Exs.P-9 & 10, and Ex.P-1, the two