Regular second appeal filed by a plaintiff claiming title to land via adverse possession since 1960 was dismissed. The High Court upheld lower courts' findings that the plaintiff failed to prove hostile possession or explain the discrepancy between his claimed start year and age.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
MR.BABU MERA, S/O KORAGA MERA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O MUNDELU HOUSE, THOTATHADY VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. – 575 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR, M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHANTY GUDDE HOUSE, NERIYA VILLAGE, BELTANGADI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT BELTHANGADY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.271/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., BELTHANGADY, D.K.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This second regular appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the concurrent findings and conclusions rendered in the judgment
3
and decree dated 12/01/2007 passed in
OS.No.271/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belthangady (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and the judgment and decree dated 05/06/2014 passed in RA.No.22/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court').
4
possession. That the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the defendants by the Tahsildar, Belthangady under SDR No.145/30/28-08-1960. That though the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the defendants, the plaintiff has been in actual possession and enjoyment of the same since 1960. That he has made lot of improvements in the plaint A schedule property by spending huge amount. That though the defendants are residing near by village having knowledge of plaintiff's possession had not objected in any manner. That the plaintiff has been in khas possession and enjoyment of the schedule property for more than 12 years in his own right openly, peacefully and to the best of the defendants. As such, he has perfected his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, sought for relief of declaration.
5
4. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared through
their counsel, but did not file written statement.
6
the appeal confirming the judgment and decree. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.
(i) That the courts below grossly erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without appreciating the material evidence produced.
(ii) That though no written statement was filed by the defendants denying case of the plaintiff and no evidence was led in on behalf of defendants, the courts below erred in not decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, he submits that the
7
same has led to mis-carriage of justice
giving rise to substantial question of law.
9. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff.
title having perfected the same by way of adverse possession being in possession of the suit schedule property openly and exclusively since 1960. The trial court referring to Ex.P1 which is RTC extract in respect of schedule property for the year 2004-05 has noted that the names of the defendants have been reflected therein as owners. Even in the khatha documents the property has been mutated in the names of the defendants and that the plaintiff has not produced any documents disclosing of his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property since 1960 as claimed. As noticed by the courts below the plaintiff at para-4 of plaint has pleaded that cause of
8
action for the suit arose in the year 1960. No details are furnished. The suit is of the year 2005 and in the plaint age of the plaintiff is shown in the cause title of the suit as 50 years. If the claim of the plaintiff to be in possession of the property since 1960 is to be considered the age of the plaintiff must have been 4 years when he allegedly came in possession of the property. The trial court has also taken note of these aspects of the matter and has rightly negated the plea.
9
anything with regard to his possession being hostile to the knowledge of the true owners being defendants. As such, the plea of adverse possession would not arise.
10
same and thus no substantial question of law arise requiring consideration. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Regular Second Appeal No.1122/1014 filed by the appellant/plaintiff is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and decree dated 12/01/2007 passed in OS.No.271/2005 by the trial court and the judgment and decree dated 05/06/2014 passed in RA.No.22/2007 by the first appellate court are confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Mkm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant established the requirements for adverse possession by proving open, exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession since 1960.
Whether dismissal of the suit for non-appreciation of evidence and hostile possession requires a substantial question of law on appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Babu Mera
Guruva Mera
Kariya Mera
Angra Mera
Babu Mera
Kunjira Mera
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
