Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gangawwa W/O Kadappa Jagadal vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
RFA No. 100338 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100338 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. KADAPPA JAGADAL
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
2. SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. NINGAPPA SHIROL
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
3. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. KADAPPA JAGADAL
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SIDAGOUND TELSANG
Location: High AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Court of R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
Karnataka, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
Dharwad Bench
5. SRI. VITHAL S/O. KADAPPA JAGADAL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
6. SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O. MAYAPPA ADARAGI
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
RFA No. 100338 of 2018
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT-587101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JAMKHANDI-587301.
3. CHETAN S/O. ARJUN HULLYAL
CALLING HIMSELF AS CHETAN
ADOPTED SON OF KADAPPA JAGADAL,
AGE 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL FATHER
ARJUN S/O. SANGAPPA HULLYAL,
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: INGALGI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ ORDER 41 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.06.2018 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.66/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL,
DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
RFA No. 100338 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This regular first appeal is filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 21.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.66/2015 by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based
on their ranking before the trial court.
3. The Appellants were the plaintiffs, and the
respondents were the defendants.
4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Regular
First Appeal are as under.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for
declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of
the plaintiffs that, they are the legal representatives of the
deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal, who died on 10.12.1998,
leaving behind the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs. The deceased
Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was in possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property. After his demise, the plaintiffs,
being the legal heirs, inherited the property left by the
deceased Kadappa. Initially, the suit property was owned and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
possessed by Hanmanthrao Balappa Desai, who was the then
landlord of the suit schedule property. The deceased Kadappa
was in possession of the suit schedule property before 1950 till
his death. The mutation was effected in the name of Kadappa.
After the demise of Kadappa, the plaintiffs, being the legal
heirs, continued the physical possession and enjoyment of the
suit property. Defendant No.3 is in no way concerned either to
the plaintiffs or to the suit property and illegally mutated his
name to the portion of the suit schedule property, i.e., to the
extent of 5 acres under the guise that, the suit property was
granted to Kadappa Allappa Jagadal, who was no-way
concerned to any portion of the suit property. The Plaintiffs
were not a party to the revenue proceedings initiated by
defendant No.3. The revenue entries in the name of defendant
No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Based on false entry in the
RTC of the suit schedule property, defendant No.3 started to
illegally obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit property prior to 20.12.2014 by denying the ownership
and possessory right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got issued a
notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the
defendants. Despite service of notice, the defendants did not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
reply to the notice. It is stated that, the suit property was
owned and possessed by Hanumantrao Balappa Desai with the
consent of the deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal. None of
the legal representatives of the deceased Hanumantrao Desai
have objected the same. Thus, the plaintiffs became the
owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse
possession. Hence, on these grounds prays to decree the suit.
5. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement denying
the entire averments made in the paint. It is contended that,
plaintiff No.1 is not the wife of Kadappa Jagadal. His real wife is
Laxmibai. Kadappa and Laxmibai had a daughter by name of
Yamanawwa. The said Yamanawwa was given in marriage to
one Sadashiv Latur. The plaintiffs have shown the father's
name of Kadappa as "Mallappa", but actually, Kadappa's father
name is "Allappa". The Assistant Commissioner of Jamkhandi
granted the suit property measuring 5 acres in favour of
Kadappa, i.e., adopted father of defendant No.3 in 2009.
Defendant No.3 was adopted by Kadappa, and the registered
adoption deed was executed, and on the basis of the same, the
name of defendant No.3 was entered in the revenue records.
He is growing sugarcane and turmeric crops. The plaintiffs are
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
nowhere concerned with the defendant's family, and they are
strangers to the defendant's family. The plaintiffs are not in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is
contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of
declaration of title is not maintainable. Hence, on these
grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.
6. The trial Court, based on the aforesaid pleadings,
framed the following issues;
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are the
absolute owners of the suit schedule properties by
way of adverse possession?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves, that they are in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule properties as on the date of the suit?
3. Whether plaintiffs proves the alleged interference
by the defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs sought
for?
5. What order or decree?
7. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff
No.1 was examined as P.W.1, examined one witness as P.W.2
and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. Defendant No.3
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
was examined as D.W.1, also examined one witness as D.W.2
and marked 11 documents as Exs.D1 to D11. The trial court,
after recording the evidence, hearing both the sides and on
assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue
Nos.1 to 4 in the negative, and issue No.5 as per the final
order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 21.06.2018. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.66/2015, filed this
Regular First Appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the
learned counsel for the defendants.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that,
Mallappa was in possession of the suit schedule property since
long back, i.e., prior to 1950, and his name was entered in the
revenue records by virtue of M.E.No.389. He submits that,
Kadappa died on 10.12.1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs.
After the demise of Kadappa, the plaintiffs continued to be in
possession of the suit schedule property as the owners without
any obstruction or interference. Thus, the plaintiffs acquired
title by adverse possession. He submits that, the trial court
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
committed an error in recording a finding that, the plaintiffs are
not in possession of the suit property and also failed to prove
that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession.
Hence, on these grounds, he submits that, the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the trial court is arbitrary, and
erroneous. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly, pray to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.3
submits that, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit
schedule property. Further, the plaintiffs have not proved the
required ingredients of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. He
submits that, plaintiffs have not admitted the title of defendant
No.3 over the suit schedule property. In the absence of
admission of the title of defendant No.3 over the suit schedule
property, the plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of declaration of
title by way of adverse possession. He submits that, the trial
Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and
decree, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
11. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points
that would arise for our consideration are;
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have
acquired title over the suit schedule property
by way of adverse possession?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment
and decree passed by the trial court is
perverse and arbitrary?
3. What order or decree?
Point No.1.
12. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff
No.1, was examined as P.W.1. She deposed that, suit schedule
property was originally owned and possessed by one
Hanmantrao Desai. Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property long back, i.e.,
prior to 1950, and the name of Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was
entered in the revenue records. Kadappa died on 10.12.1998,
leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Defendant No.3
is in no way concerned with the suit schedule property,
defendant No.3 illegally mutated his name to the extent of 5
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
acres under the guise that, the suit property was granted to
one Kadappa Allappa Jagadal. Defendant No.3 created the
records. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, got produced the
documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P6, which are the RTC
extracts, which disclose that, the property stood in the name of
Kadappa Jagadal. Ex.P6 is the surviving family members
certificate, which discloses that, the plaintiffs are the legal heirs
of deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal. Ex.P7 is the legal
notice issued under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure
to the defendants on 30.12.2014, calling upon defendant No.1
to delete the name of defendant No.3 from column No.12 of
RTC, failing which, the plaintiffs would initiate a suit against the
defendants. The said notice was duly served on defendant
Nos.1 and 2. Exs.P8 to P12 are the postal receipts and
acknowledgements. Ex.P13 is the General Power of Attorney
executed by the plaintiffs in favour of plaintiff No.1 to depose
on their behalf. Exs.P14 to 16 are the mutation extracts.
Ex.P17 is the genealogical tree of the family of the plaintiffs.
13. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that,
the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.217 measuring 15
acres 17 guntas was owned by Hanmanthrao Desai and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
Kadappa was cultivating the suit schedule property. Kadappa
Allappa Jagadal filed form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The
Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Kadappa
Allappa Jagadal to the extent of 5 acres of land. She denied
that, Kadappa Jagadal had a wife by the name of Laxmibai and
they had a daughter by the name of Yamanawwa and, who was
given in marriage to one Sadashiv Latur. Yamanawwa and
Sadashiv had no issues. She pleads her ignorance about the
adoption of defendant No.3 by Kadappa Allappa Jagadal. She
denied that, she had not produced any documents to show
that, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Kadappa. She
denied that, the defendants have been created Ex.P6. She
admits that, defendant No.3 is growing sugarcane in the suit
land and denies that, since the date of the grant of the suit
property, defendant No.3 and his father have been in
possession of the suit property. She denied that, the plaintiffs
have not produced any records to establish their possession
over the suit schedule property. She admits that, Kadappa's
father's name is Allappa.
14. Further, plaintiffs have examined one witness by
the name of Irayya as P.W.2, who has deposed that, plaintiffs
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
are the legal representatives of deceased Kadappa Mallappa
Jagadal, who died on 10.12.1998. Prior to the death of
Kadappa, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property. Originally, the suit property was owned and
possessed by Hanmanthrao Desai, who was the landlord of the
suit properties. Kadappa was paying remuneration in lieu of
lavani in respect of the suit schedule property. Kadappa was in
possession of the suit property, and after his demise, plaintiffs,
being the Class-I heirs, continued in possession of the suit
schedule property. During cross-examination, it was deposed
that, Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal filed case against
Hanamanthrao Desai pertaining to Sy.No.217 and Kadappa
forced him to give evidence. He denied that P.W.2 does not
know the facts of the case. It is denied that, defendant No.3 is
the adopted son of Kadappa.
15. In rebuttal, defendant No.3 examined one witness
as D.W.1. D.W.1 is the father of defendant No.3. He has
deposed that, Smt.Gangawwa i.e., plaintiff No.1 is not the wife
of Kadappa Jagadal, but his real wife is Laxmibai. Kadappa and
Laxmibai have a daughter by the name of Yamanawwa. The
said Yamanawwa was given in marriage to one Sadashiv Latur,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
and the plaintiffs have shown the name of father of Kadappa as
"Mallappa", but actually, Kadappa's father's name is "Allappa".
Defendant No.2 granted the suit property to defendant No.3's
adopted father in 2009. Based on the registered adoption deed,
the name of defendant No.3 was entered in the record of
rights. Defendant No.3 was in possession and enjoyment of the
suit property, and he is growing sugarcane and turmeric crops.
The plaintiffs are strangers to the family of defendant No.3. The
plaintiffs, taking advantage of the surname as "Jagadal", filed a
false suit to grab the property of defendant No.3. The plaintiffs
are never in possession of the suit schedule property at any
point in time.
16. To prove that, defendant No.3 was adopted by
Kadappa, defendant No.3 has produced a certified copy of the
adoption deed marked as Ex.D1. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of
the plaint in O.S.No.360/2014 filed by defendant No.3 against
one Rajashekar Mahadevappa Bidari for permanent injunction
regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.D3 is the certified copy
of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.360/2014, which
discloses that defendants in the said suit have entered into a
compromise and the trial Court has drawn a compromise
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
decree as per Ex.D4. Ex D5 is the death certificate. Exs.D6 to
D8 are cane weighment slips. The receipts are in the name of
D.W.1. Ex.D9 is the mutation extract, which discloses that
name of Kadappa was entered in the revenue records regarding
suit schedule property. Ex.D10 is M.R.No.95/2011-12, in the
name of Kadappa Jagadal. Ex.D11 is the mutation extract,
which discloses that the suit property was mutated in the name
of defendant No.3 on 29.01.2013.
17. Defendant No.3 also examined one witness as
D.W.2, who deposed that defendant No.3 is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the Land Tribunal
granted the said land in favour of Kadappa Jagadal. Nothing
has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve
the evidence of D.W.2.
18. From a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and
D.Ws.1 and 2, the entire case of the plaintiffs is that, the suit
schedule property was granted in favour of Kadappa Mallappa
Jagadal by the Land Tribunal and plaintiff No.1 is the wife of
Kadappa and plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Kadappa.
To establish that, plaintiffs are in possession of the suit
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
schedule property, except producing Exs.P1 to P6, i.e., RTC
extracts, which discloses that Kadappa Jagadal was in
possession of the suit schedule property, they have not
produced any documents. It is the defence of the defendants
that, the suit property was granted in favour of Kadappa
Allappa Jagadal, and he adopted defendant No.3, and the
adoption deed was registered and marked as Ex.D1. The
plaintiffs had not produced any records to establish their
possession over the suit schedule property. Further, the
plaintiffs have not pleaded, when they came in possession of
the suit schedule property and adverse to the true owner.
19. The concept of adverse possession involves 3
elements, namely 1) Property, the subject of adverse
possession, 2) The possession of property by a person having
no right to have its possession (animus possidendi) and 3) The
possession be adverse to the true owner. In the claim of
adverse possession, the title is not disputed: The plea of
adverse possession raises mixed questions of law and fact.
Where a person wants to base his title on it, he should
specifically set up the plea. Unless the plea is raised, it cannot
be entertained. A plea must be raised, and it must be shown
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
when the possession became adverse, so that the starting point
of limitation against the party affected can be found. A person
acquires a title by way of adverse possession, when he is in
continuous and uninterrupted, hostile possession over a period
of 12 or more years. In order to calculate 12 years of period,
there should be a starting point. Therefore, the law mandates
that a person who seeks a declaration that, he has perfected
his title by way of adverse possession, should specifically plead
the date from which his possession becomes adverse to that of
the true owner. It is from that date, if a person shows
continuous uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years,
then the right of the true owners to the property stands
extinguished, and the defendant would acquire the title by way
of adverse possession. Insofar as proof of adverse possession is
concerned, it is a well settled principle that a party claiming
adverse possession must prove that, his possession is 'nec vi,
nec clam, nec precario', i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. The
possession must be adequate, in continuity, in publicity, and to
show the extent of adverse possession one should show:
(a) On what date did he come into possession?
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
(b) What was the nature of his possession?
(c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the
other party?
(d) How long has his possession has continued?
(e) His possession was open and undisturbed.
20. It's only on the proof of all these ingredients, the
case of adverse possession is said to have been established. A
person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his
favour, since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true
owners, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the
ingredients/points necessary to establish his adverse
possession.
21. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiffs have
not pleaded, on what date they came into possession, the
nature of their possession, the factum of possession was known
to the other party, and how long their possession was
continued and their possession was open and undisturbed.
22. From a perusal of the plaint and evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2, all these requirements have not been pleaded to and are
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
not proved by the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs have not
admitted the title of defendant No.3 over the suit schedule
property. The plaintiffs cannot claim adverse possession
without accepting the title of defendant No.3.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANNAKILI
VS. VEDANAYAGAM AND OTHERS reported in (2007) AIR
SCW 6892 held in para 22, which reads as under:
"22. Claim by adverse possession has two
elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should
become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant
must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12
years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is
a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a
well settled principle of law that mere possession of the
land would not ripen into possessory title for the said
purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and
hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For
the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be
shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at
the commencement of the possession. He must continue
in said capacity for the period prescribed under the
Limitation Act. Mere long possession, it is trite, for a
period of more than 12 years without anything more do
not ripen into a title."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HEMAJI
WAGHAJI JAT VS. BHIKHA BAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN
AND OTHERS reported in (2008) SCW 6996 held in para 18,
which reads as under:
"18. In Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of
India (2004) 10 SCC 779 at para 11, this Court observed as
under:
"In the eye of the law, an owner would be
deemed to be in possession of a property so long as
there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the
owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the
position will be altered when another person takes
possession of the property and asserts a right over it.
Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly
asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true
owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming
adverse possession must prove that his possession is
"nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open
and continuous. The possession must be adequate in
continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their
possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start
with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be
actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the
statutory period".
The Court further observed that plea of adverse
possession is not a pure question of law but a blended
one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims
adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his
possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was
known to the other party, (d) how long his possession
has continued, and (e) his possession was open and
undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has
no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the
rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and
establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse
possession."
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.N.
ASWATHAMA AND ANOTHER VS. V.P.PRAKASH reported in
AIR (2009) SCW 5439, held in para 17, which reads as
under:
"17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To
establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse
possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant
must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted,
notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding
twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous
possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it
was either permissive possession or possession without animus
possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are
mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate
until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the
property has the requisite animus to possess the property
hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription
will not commence."
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
HARYANA VS. MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2012 SC 559, held in paras 42 , 43, and 48, which reads
as under:
"42. We inherited this law of adverse possession
from the British. The parliament may consider abolishing
the law of adverse possession or atleast amending and
making substantial changes in law in the larger public
interest. The Government instrumentalities- including
the police in the instant case have attempted to
possess land adversely. This, in our opinion, a testament
to the absurdity of the law and a black mark upon the
justice system's legitimacy. The Government should
protect the property of a citizen- not steal it. And yet, as
the law currently stands, they may do just that. If this
law is to be retained, according to the wisdom of the
Parliament, then at least the law must require those
who adversely possess land to compensate title owners
according to the prevalent market rate of the land or
property in question. This alternative would provide
some semblance of justice to those who have done
nothing other than sitting on their rights for the
statutory period, while allowing the adverse possessor
to remain on property. While it may be indefensible to
require all adverse possessors- some of whom may be
poor to pay market rates for the land they possess,
perhaps some lesser amount would be realistic in most
of the cases. The Parliament may either fix a set range
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
of rates or to leave it to the judiciary with the option of
choosing from within a set range of rates so as to tailor
the compensation to the equities of a given case."
"43. The Parliament must seriously consider
atleast to abolish "bad faith" adverse possession, i.e.,
adverse possession achieved through intentional
trespassing. Actually believing it to be their own could
receive title through adverse possession sends a wrong
signal to the society at large. Such a change would
ensure that only those who had established attachments
to the land through honest means would be entitled to
legal relief."
"48. The doctrine of adverse possession has
troubled a great many legal minds. We are clearly of the
opinion that time has come for change."
27. The plaintiffs contention is not maintainable as the
plaintiffs are claiming title by way of adverse possession. The
plaintiffs failed to establish their adverse possession. The trial
Court has rightly recorded its finding that, the plaintiffs are not
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property as of the date of the suit, and they have failed to
prove the alleged interference by the defendants, and rightly
dismissed the suit. In view of the above discussion, we answer
point No.1 in the negative holding that, the plaintiffs have failed
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
to establish that, they have acquired title and become absolute
owners by way of adverse possession.
Pont No.2.
28. The trial Court, considered entire evidence of the
parties and placed the reliance on the documents produced by
the parties and also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANJANAPPA AND OTHERS
Vs. SOMALINGAPPA reported in (2006) 7 SCC 570 has
recorded its finding that, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that
they have acquired title to the suit property by way of adverse
possession and recorded that defendant No.3 is the adopted
son of Kadappa Allappa Jagadal and Kadappa Allappa Jagadal
was in possession of the suit schedule property and also held
that, Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was not in possession of the
suit schedule property from 1996-1997 onwards. P.W.1 had
clearly admitted that, Kadappa Allappa Jagadal was cultivating
the suit property, and he had filed form No.7 before the Land
Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in
favour of Kadappa Allappa Jagadal to the extent of 5 acres and
remaining 10 acres, 17 guntas were retained by the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB
Government. The trial court has considered the entire material
on record and has rightly dismissed the suit. In view of the
above discussion, we answer point No.2 in the negative.
Point No.3.
In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the
following;
ORDER
The Regular Fist Appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 passed in
O.S.No.66/2015 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby confirmed.
No order as to the cost.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:VH
