Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka Rep By The ... vs N Jayarama Reddy on 1 April, 2011
AND: S/O.P yal Aged about 51 vears. Residing at Dodaneksxund, Bangalore South Taluk, a . . a Bangalore District. oy ca Bespondent "ourise bk for =
Nath?
ca ft 7 ee So = os c ie "
oe _ aS we A or :
om ;
ana for declaration aoc iylaycton: comine on.for dictating jucge _ a on is rN ' Be Court ras decreed the sul af plaintiff is the owner of the perfected his tile by adverse posse have been restrained from inverfering Poy possession and enjoyment of the sini the piaitit.
" ; nla tamed Toes lal 4 Sante een wiledian fa eb a fayette 4, Agel revech Oy CPheit, ine eye fants -cetenadants Sled this appeal.
reference [o Bo be. brief. the vfacts are: The respondent plaintiif reclaration anc permanent the karap land ae South Taluk. is the Government land. The plamuifs father wes A Government anvbody. The plainutts father IMpry property by levelling the land and "bringing ef for hs FEVETTLIG. £ seat operations. When.the, plant cultivating the lang.bs bei umatitnorised possession ana
--
w re a , (Tic Pi SO BATCe?
The suit schedule property has plaintHl has grown coconul > *. POSSession ana eucalyptus plantation also. It is stated, tne 4 borewell, constructed puimip mouse, water tank, 'ters in the suit schedule properts..
oD &. The defendanis had the knowledge. of tre er the plaintiff has been im Wnenutherised and cultivation of the suit schedule f y Sir¥ce toe.the Government, the vear 1963, the Unader™ mg fe ge dated Revenue Department, issued:
possession ye cirected tne i 1S.of Doddanekkundi village respect ef Sv No Inspe eses that the plaints Doddanekkund! village. The order dated 2.9,1989 passed by hisiicar, addressed to the the T:
aiso discloses that the plaintill has o continuous possession and enjovment of the suit osc property for more than 40 ve it is stated, the Survevon, & also conducted the survey. and i jar. Bangalore Soutn Taluk, dated i "SOuenit (or. re schedule the. Government. The second defendant . issued rsement. dated 20.9.1 Revenue Inspector, K.R.F & :
i z i bearing No.NCR CR.118/86-87 i village, 4 Doddanekkundi plaintif and the uninterrupted and continuous the The plamtuls po TEP property.8 adequate in continuity and notorious = Unauthorised possession of the defendants disclose -th and pubiucity eccppect ils SOrpPe ce lee eq hoes mis Pipe oy ¥ sc) ine property plaintiff for the last 40 years. and the plaintiffs possession of the suit schedule property is more than Statutory period of-30 years and the Government has not disturbed the plantivs -
i possession knowing fully that the suit schedule property is Government land.
10. The defendants visited 1 the SUIL "schedule. property about a week ago and informe' the plains that they will take 'possession of the suit, schedule' prover ty as it is a Govertiment land. THE defe endants cm siioned d the plaintifl that they will come and 7 ae ch : exi isting farm house and putap house. The defenc dants may dispossess the plainti? at any time from the suit schedule property. a be it is stated, the plaintiff fled form No.s0 under | ection. 94 AL of thé. Karn ataka Land Revenue Act 1964 for ~ pegulariation. of unauthorised: accupation. The plaintiff's
- Therefore, : the plaineitt filed 5 a The writ pétition wals
-@irection to the. Committee to .
CRC and: thei consider the application of the plaintiff as expeditiously as possible within four months, Inspite of direction). the Committee and the defendant No.4 did not ¢onsider >the - application.
war)
12. tis stated, since 1960, the plaitti iPs fether was in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the suit schedule property. Thereafier, the plaintilf and 'his s fat ther continued j m unauthorised occupation ar 1d cult» ation untitterruptedly and continuously to. 'the' knowledge 08 : che" Government and adverse to the 'right, Hve® and invest of the defendants. Therefore, "the planitifi has -prayed for declaration and permanent injunction a "4G: The defendants Le., the appellants herein have resisted the. suit, contending that. the . plaintiff has not omplied with, the mandatory requiremeiit of sestion 8 of erefore, the sult is- not maintainable : The Suit:
# ao Bd : schedule property measuring 13 acres sand 34, guntas, bearing survey No.1S of Dodda nie 2} Rundi Ss le sified as sarakari kKharab land. The plaintif is the unauthorised cultivator and does mot have any right, title or interest, ia the Suit schedule property. The plaintiff cannor-clain tile against the Government by adverse possession. "Thre tard 1S not granted in favour of the plameall. is deemed to be an unauthorised-cultivator and it amounts to"
trespass into the Government land: (4. [dtas stated. Form "ultivators of the Government was rejected by the-reguiarrsation committee on 22.1.)995 as H.GO dated 5.2.19), per Governiment.cire mm {& kms., from the Bangalore City Corporation tim The plaintiff has no locus standi to file sed cultivator and va Fle 'the sult-as the plaintiff is only an unauthor title or interest im the suit schedule property. The plaintiff canmot claim ceclarati "rerely becalise he is in possession of the suit schedule for many vears. Therefore, the defendants nave DYORErEy ppavedl ror GisimiiSSar oft. SLPEt 5 of no, ay re bi 6h ah fos w) ms OY - SS is a mm mn Me tes ws we spose ve Sa ier > se ee 5 o 5 : peed hand pel fo cry oD vent - oF) "oe Seo BMG a5 nol sy fed =, Net peed thd oy ned "4 got fy eo wT pe We ot we a co pot : oy :
mel Bae, ati et fede: ee Tne 2 att yo ho wn ey ' Awe pee oy "bons os Need cee a ie eel wt oo ¥ ion twee 3 peel tnd a a Ea pee ra sie yn ~ ra a owe a oe wa a ~ wn ww m " Net ond Naat St pa P fo a oni on ad et Mn --
wh, Bon ma ad mo jen " Pew gy ~ hoe we " ae o oe on oa oe me ar ' tone : Ce eat i ae Ets . po ey banc a ope hat in oe : Fi os pol pee ei me wf oa She : Poca sino t, Be « Ae 2 ye Su fa Oo Sa i os we se pan a od cS qi ¢ i 43 --
ent pe poten al ph ~n ea 2 rm ~ rane Bae fea eo po o -- ! Bee Pe a oe aoe oe wt we wt af on ay res faa moo Sa! a! ene oo - ' --
. r pve Set ee oe y : os es = mm he \ oo pe at " af oon Soi We "a * _ _ sce seh a "a ow os ae pane 's e Frage ae prow id we) noes ¥e oat a 2 ert P, at We Ba aad ¥ as ote on - 7 5 "= Se 4 o " 7 caoeed fet ee raven ", lee "~ ned Sa a a ? qa Set ad poy Poor 'el ao SAE Poot Get fod aed a oe fem wt cad : 4 sg ine . 43 Ob 2 * wos Sa! oe a oy ose On Seton a on, ead :
os -- St a mag : a3 Sn ake Nabaal pe a om, Spent Hf de Sent vies : he - ao Fron) ee ee ov i rs i Os ec pe pel oat a , Ses ee wd Oe ec . a o Send * on Nae oe con 'net
- A"
i8. The learned Addl. AG for the appellants contended ', T p . . . ae consider the evidence om "record. in/-pfoper perspective. Further he submitted that-ihe possession 'oP the r ie. the plaintiff.is not adverse. - also submitted that the . 2 £5 . eae _ - oe opel peg ed aeery ilies pier td - sted for grant of land and regularisation therefore, there is no hostile i i le animus is necessary to perfect title prrmnanaune"
™ COVeErnimient.
by adverse possession. In the present case, the respondent lacks hostile animus to perfect nis title by acverse } Li 20, Placing reliance on the decision of the-hon'ble.. learned Add). AG submitted t in denial of the title of the real the possession is nat hostile. of the Hon/'ble
21. Placing reliance ent! Supreme court reported in 2000) SCO Page 652 the learned ~ of open, hostile anc continuous possession js required to substantiate the claim of adverse possession.
. PER Ce OF 2°, Placing court reported in #2010)5 SCC Page 203 the learned Addl. AG eedraiie , step iay animus to ciaun rshin is nmol suitic! Ale judgement and ce UeCrEee
23. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ple Supreme Court reported in AG submitted that adverse pos adequate in continuity, in publicity and extentvankd ] required to show when possessicr the starting point of limitation a his. ~the learned counsel for the the ampuened judement and respondent submitted "th Fe also submitted that, . * ~ 4 = ey te r a es ee Frat call for the Trial, Court on, proper consideration of the material reapondent has perfected possession and therefore, the impugnec ebeveyes eye weyl ep amy egy, ge dca does mot cal. for interier marie averments conslirute adverse possession and the authorities had the knowledge ot unauthorised cultivation and occupation of the respendent aa he. the plaintiff simece (960. The RTC extracts show ie The respondert has «produced photographs which show the improvement made ithe. suit. schedule property. Further he slpomitted thabk.the defendant No.4, in his cross-examination, has admitted the possession of the plaintiff and construction of the-structures and it was ferrdants and the public and pen, continuous, peaceful + .
and uninterruptes: for. ms e than the statutory period and therefore, the impugned "rd and decree call for interference, He also submitted that right from 1960 to 2000, is im canftiluowus, jostle possession and therefore, decree does mot call for animus has been established. He alse submitted fe mot taken ariv steps (6 recover POSSESSION and decree does not call for interference. -
26. Placing reliance on the. decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW page 2863. the t the plea of pend learned counsel for the respondent submitted th:
adverse possessicn AAS Not peer, traversed and adverse interfe therefore, the © 4 'oa ? .
rca 'K.R. LAKSHMAN vs. SPATE OF KARNATAKA & Others reported in 1998/5) Karnataka Law Journal page 137. the
28. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in M.B.GANGADHARAPPA vs. BOMMAGONDAPPA reperted: in 1999/2) Karnataka Law Journal page 259. the 'learned counsel! for the respondent submitted-that | , which constitutes cause of action 1s that the fact is admitted and -the party who makes the + iP mot prove it, allegation nee
29. Placing reliance.an the .decisioy Supreme Court reported in. AIR 1979 Supreme Court page 1142, the learned edunsel forthe to the the plaintel was wre exclusive possession adv > gt ra es ee Paes ge 3 wt interest of the. deferidaits for more than SO vears and the possession of (he plaintiil was never interrupted or disturbed ntiff has acquired ownership by aciverse efore, thé pial on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme! Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. DALHOUSIE INSTITUTE OF SOCIETY reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court page 1778.
cpt learned coumse for the pellant subrmirtecd he evidence on record shows fat the plainuff was im open, continuous and urinte possession for more Uran JO ve ears and-thereh Pye Lt 2 EEE ee eee peagerbeyestaard iyle Fie i an has perfected fis ttle bv aaverse POSSESSION.
31. Placine rehance on the. decision. of ti Supreme Court in KSHITISH o CHANDRA BOSE vs. COMMISSIONER OF RANCHI reporied in (1981)2 SCC page 1S :
fo ie 103, the learned coufisel f "the respondent submited that possession must be oper male > Ife has be ia' at 2a G8n proved that tre -- COMUMLUOGUS, Lmnterru pled anc > deiencdants.
re decision of ourk in KRISHNAMURTHY S.SETLUR vs. D.V:NARASIMHA SETTY & Others reported in (2007) 3 SCC i page $69. the learried COLITISE | responder' Sup riitien:
. ehagn f leuaatrage ~ a ee ee aarbse ers pias bs OL fe LPPisalionl AteS €O @XCISUISh ae 19 the right of a person to the property who does mot sue for its possession within time allowed by Jaw and tne right. gets extinguished. The appellants have mot taken aly sleps ie S i BLISS recover possession within the statutormperisd of SO years ard = Z. ee ere a bey ps 1 spate dog earth eee ey cope Byte com od els oy therefore, the 1b PETS ONLQLISNCG ANG Tre lost right to recover possession.
33. Placing reliarice. en the. decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in BONDAR, SINGH & Others vs. NIHAL SINGH & Others revoried in, (2003) 4 SCC page 161. the 4 suipomitted that the learned counsel for. the respondent plaintiff was tm continues and uninlerrupted possession lan of the plaintiff was hostile to t since [960 arrd the possess tne defendant Ss eid the defemdantS fared hp yecavel possession within the statutory perio and have lost right to and therefore, the plea of adver recover D0 ign Stands establishec, reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble z in AIR 1964 SC page 1254, the learned counse: for the respondent submitted that the possession of the plaintiff. was : ae adequate in continuity, in pubheity and extent at adverse possession has been raised.e-and the proved adverse possession.
35. Placing relance on the. decision of the, Hon ble toned Supreme Court in STATE OF BIHAR vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & Others reported.in (1983) 3°SCC page 118. the learned counsel far Uie-responmdent-suoniitted that DW.1 in plamtiff! has feneercarn. dreacol.OG acres out of Sy.Nolls if WAS submitted that the appieation for regularisation has.béen rejected on 06.11.2002.
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted tne order dated 8.11.2002 has not been communicated ibis net an order in the eve af law. 38, | have carefully considered the submissions rade bv the learned counsel for the parties.
39. The point that arises forp-rmy consideration. 1s, Ahethe Trial Court was fustified in" holdire us } C f justified ino} plaintiff has perfected fus title granting decree for deciaralion and trutncton? father was bey oy tae en ey ew eng es aes ey byes re was assisting his f attained majority, he started the plainuill flec of Wrent Was is:
tof the cultivation after amendment. Vhereafter, the plainti! has : .
given representation to the Chief Minister on -+}[email protected] been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, iar regularisation of. i unauthorised cultivation which mas not been 'considered:
Therefore, the plant has approaehed this.-Court in + oy WP NG. 24851/1996. This Court Has directéd the Committee to consider the application within four manths. The plaintiff contends that-his.applicatiean has "aot been considered and endarits.interfered with his possession. Therefore, the i and permanent injunction. pleaintif has praved ter.déclarati At: a wl ote, . 7 ches 0 ag thay 4 we gs RPO GO piaaritss Le, Lite ale contended that the property bearing Sy.Nea.15 -- of Doddanekkundi village measuring 13 acres and 34 euntas is a.saraker.karab land. The plaimtiff is an unauthorised bel ree he om cgay to pe Ven ey pipe oe Vaca scgh orpenur ae a tei, we ete ge . : CLGEIVOOOP AMG Me does Mol AAVe any right, Rihi@ OF TP Eerest in the Gand. The Came ir actual possession of the against the Government. Porm No.SOG filed by the luivators of t urbeuthorised ye Government "land "of Doddanekkundi village was rejected by the reguiarisa "ion committee on 22,).1993 vide Govern ment, circular dated 9.2.190]. It 1s stated, the plaintiff has na Jocud staid oie.
the suit and he cannot claim any. rolief merel « becau se he is. mp possession of the suit scredu le prope e riy
42. The respondent ise., the plainufl has examined PWs.1] to 4 and « x hik Wve bee en marked.
"Lethe appellants herein have 'a DB. Pro D5 have been marked.
44. PWoioie,.the plaintiff has deposed that himself and has" father Came in actual possession and enjoyment of 5 r MNo.1S of Deddanekkundi village. His fle was Assisting his father to SLPSIALafe Te jeic., Mis father and Pnyise if Weepe EP) cic CLEDALTOP of the suit schedule property which was a karab land... They have invested huge amount and started growing crops. hike ragi, paddy, huraliete. In column 12(2}) of RTC. the name. of his father and his name have been' entered. simce OF dug a bore well, Axed purnp ser and developed the 'land. by, pees srspie wrtinc PR a planting mango plants, coconut prants anc'sapota plants. has constructed a purnp Douses water tank and a watchmen i -
shed and workers quarters by spending. .puse Amount. He has rause..shed and servant taken power suppiv.to the pump bearing, aved about o-te 6 vears. coconut plants aged about [5S years and Sapolar eed ABOUT O Years, widand some part is fenced by barbed wire fencing. ive possession, use and enjoyn rent oF the enpovinene Revenue Mave visited the sitt>land they have not raised [ii the year 967, the sand. prepared a survey the Revenue Inspector He has applied for preparea revenue Sketch as per fF regularisation Of bis ubtGiths Jitivation and also made request to the sooverrynient, lor his favour, In spite of diréetion by the Government. the Land reeularise the suit land in his risation conmittee and Te we aud LPO Pea The writ petition came be disposed of, with are sopucation within four months, t aed eae ba bboy aes CHG AMTTC De cibrary.
47. Further, PAW.) has stated that the entries in the RTC for the vears 1973-74 to 1996-97 stand ie tus. mame, The village development committee requested the. defendants to grant the land im his favour. The, Dalit a Sangha called as Ambedkar Dahta Sangha has al 20 requested ie auth orities to grant land in their favour. Excest himsel! and His father, nobody has any right, title "or interest inthe suit schedu property. The possession. s. continuotis anid for more than the statutory pe hod: i he defen d a nt s Have. not taken any memo During October ho action to dispossess 2000 the caléh. his lawful possession, He defendants tried to unter has become apsolute owner by virtue of lawful possession for nen JS years openly, peacefully and adversely to the ge obtne defendants and has perfected his title. 46.0 P.Ws.2. 3 and 4, the resicgents of Doddanekkund! have deposed that the plainutf and his obstructed the cultivation of the land by the plaintiff and his ~aniterfere with. the possession of the plaintif and ds scnedule property. The plaintiff and his father have grown Paddy. Ragi and Hurati. The plaintiff has spent huee amount and has planted Mango, Coconut and Sapota constructed a plump house, water tarck. dua borewell, built servant quarters and aiso taken electricity cormection. The plamiiif and his father are in -céntinucus pos emjoyment of the suit schedule p:
bony aad years. The suit schedule land belongs to Government and it was Karab land. The land was levelled. by the plaintiff and his lather by spending iuee "plaintiff and his father and enjovrnent of the suit are in exclusive. ¢ scnedule property to-the koowiedge of the villagers. ~The .defendants have never objected or father. During sy 2000, the defendants legally tried to imaged the Ris
49. 139.W.) has deposed that he is serving as a Tahsildar and depos:
on the basis of the record. Phe land in Sy.No.15 of Doddanekkundi villa totally measures 11 acres and 34 gurmticas. allotted to KIADB, 5 acres and 30 guntas of land mas been reserved for Muslim burial eround end road-and S acres and + euntas of land has beer. cept \ The application fled by the plaintiff for regularisation.cf unduthorised cultivation has been rejected on 22/7 /1993.. Ihis false that the plaintiff and Pus predecessors.
enjoyment sol (se suit'schedule lard for more than 40 vears and the plaintiff and-tus father have invested Nuge amount truction like farm house sheds, borewell and and pur up con "servant quarters and they have perfected their title by adverse Oo, the Government has passed an possession, Gn order allotting Svacres of land to Mushm burial ground and 30 for road. Form No.s0 fled oy ul jeen rejected on the ground that the suit schedule property 1s iated within 1S k.m. from the Bangalore city. Le e SQ. Ia his eross-examination, D.W.) has statec>that there are records to show that the plainuilf and. his rather have applied for regularisation of their, eultivation. He has admitted the contenis:o! Ex PY ca Ex.D-4. He has stated that there is a direction. by.this Court:
to consider the application of the plaintiff fer regularisation. 4e-nas stated that t He has admitted Exhibits P-? to P18 Vilage Development. Committees has recommended for grant of land in faveur of the plaintiff and the-plaintiff has put up taken power borewell in the. suf, schedule property anc cormmection: to plaintiff..over the -suit schedule property, construction oF structures, plantation of trees are well within the knowledge plaintiff has produced Exs. P-] to P-24. STEEL cated Pe P-j.is the acknowled 5 Ey gee box oe ne Tey t i sete bate Fy ne dey x. AT * tS .
P.3 are the sketches relating to Sv. No.iS. Ex .P-bhis the sttcresennn & :
2b Jand in. $ letter dated 5/2/1991]. The plainuff has been informed that his representation dated 4/1/1991 has been Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urbar action. Ex.P-S is the endorsement catec stated that the application of the plaimalh for-re will be considered after amendment to Land "Reverie Act.:
Ex.P-6 1s the order passed.in W.PoMo 248: io P-iS are the RTC extrac oF ms Ce an ee /1989 given by O7. Ex.P-19 is the representation dated' Tr the Vilage Developmen "and the villagers to the > Development "Committee and the villagers to the Deputy, Commissioner, Bangalore Urban io grant S acres of q ene . Cultivating the ad negatives of the photographs. Ex.P-29 is the sketch relating Bx. D-1l is the order dated S/1/(909.passed by the ope ground:
iS the. Notification Karnataka Land Re ve years 1894-95 to 2000-2001. In m a ' m ot wan sean mi * i ne ved os o of rr ~ :
es = cS 4 = fland-7S shown as Government of land. has been given to KIADB and fo Musiim burial ground and BS. A earefil consideration of would reveal that the plaintiff and his father have started "cultivation in the year 199%. an application for grant of land in sy. Doddenakkundi village. Bangalore South Taluk... 0. The application has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner - aa eon erg tar ..P-1 for disposal. P.3 ye... the sketches have been prepared: On. < the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has" i given an endorsement lo the planiulf. stating that action will i be taken to regularise the cultivation "ater. amendment o} dated 4/1/1900) tovthe Chieh Mink f ?
one Na! £h es ve i see wt "
# ot fet a pe ae im ot seo?
pect ed a
-
set o pe a rane ae wet ond mt on of wf
--
= Nee see = ey CD repo 'thal o _ pend Fe a n, oe a eel fs z ~ Therealter, the plaintif has filed sidered.
Yherefore, tne aoplication of the petitioner within jour mc mot been considered. fut, the defendants contend that the appheation has been rejected. However, no material has been placed on record, to show that the apphcation has been rej
54. The plamtfi and his. father' haves Ee':
cultivating the land in the vear 2000. tm 1965 othe plaintils > father has requested for In POO], the plaintiff has requested for grant ef dand ance.alse. to regularise his Far OF Animus on unauthorised cultivation. Jhis inc "and his father to possess the land Pthe Governirent.
55. Pre. Hon ble. Supre (in S.M.KARIM VS.
rted'in AIR 1964 SC page 1254 has MST. BIBI SAKINA re Reid, adverse possession must be adequate in contimuity, in mlicety and oxtent and the plea is required to show when nossession beconies adverse. e ad obees Supreme Court has held that a concrete proof of open, hostile probe and continuous possession is required to substantiate 'the eaim of adverse possession. Adverse passeasi commence until actual possession 7s. obtamecd with". the required animus,
57. In (2006) 7 SCC page-S7O im F.Anjanappa and Others Vs. Somalingappa and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 12, 15, as follows:
Para 1v:
ission cortemplates a The conce hostile Session erieh 1s codental of the title of the true CXPFESSiy OPN adverse r ignites. fhe proiciple of lai ts firmly estab @ person iwho bases LIVERS:
ocd, eh levice Thal AIS possession elurier arid cameounted to faved. For deerd:
mo _ aa POSSESSION, rreast eortierdl factor, Wi cf oe qumed agaiish pi person is said my dg un be re see oO hold the property adver FE GLsrer Li} Maur Frovr eae An occupation of reauty iS itcernsistent wit of the true owner. Where cd person pessesses property to possess i, Re possesses it ; phyday ey .
Oo FS SOLER Ia POSSESSION. OF it that: HES POSSESSION iS COFLSISTeME free Rounds, 'MePrSse PRISSESSION [8 i erse from the beginning, or PUES Cdl Ras < become subsequently, Thus, if a a an LOLA Es 4 +O lecerdicayy, OF TPUSTEGe, MIS POSSESSION COL OFM Der adverse by some change in Ais position. possession not only entitles the adverse po: ke every other possessor, to be pre RGGI S! cl Lend ccperret shina POSSess eNOS bul also, uf the adie . PEPGITIS: 17) possession jor a certain period of ime produces t or, arid effect either of barring the Fight of the trive owe thus, converting the, posses: of action to recover hus property c2a this alfhowgn ihe true ourner IS LGPLOrcertt ssessioris thet form of possession or Adverse iy the title Weh is ineorsiste accupancy Of land 4 iy personia ustiom the land rightfully beongs and iglish that person's tile. which provides son smal make an entry or distress, or land or rent, but within except mm the cases provided for by Ree BO ey ey gee fo Poy ew gee gh doen len oe he i. mecnon fo. Possession is sot hells) carn be POepeeP Pe FO a) FLL Pera 20:
it is well-recognised propesitian. in tas: that. rere necessarily mice that a 7s adverse to fhe ¥ possession realiy means the hostile poss. is expressly ar impliedly sr denial of OLEATE and Wi arder ta Gorestitute AduErse Pos Pel SCN pe: stort in denial of the be open and mastile He of being Known by the parties nought mois nol necessary et dLd ee RAED EEE PE Ces fas aed o8 In (2010) S SCC page 203 in R.Hanumaiah and another Vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka. Revenue Department and others, the Hon'ble Supreme -Court-has- observed in paras 21 and 22 as follows: Para 21:
A Court should necessarily seek-an answer te the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the Gouerynent: whether the plaintiff has produced title deed is tracing the titie for thy a period of mere than thi ty years; or whether the ¢ plaintiff has . stabits hed | fas aduers Se possession to the knowledge "of the Government: for a period of MLOre. titan ihirty. years, so as to convert his possession into ttle. incidental to that question, the jedorded. fo be the owner or he older: or occupant of . the property. in the. revenue records or municipal - One eet thirty yeurs, and what is the os in : "posses _ per rmissi ve; : da > 6 oh sional. f furtive 'ane a aU the Goverrurent, G elainart has to estab title which is supenor to or-better than ti wile by adverse covernment or establish pei 2an thirty years rm possession for i°éperiod of m with the Knoudedge of the: Goverament. To claim sion of the clapnerit adverse possessiori, DOs 'ible, hostile to the owner must be actual, open ard SGPT fore 2 of the land the witht the knenwlect ouuper, <td €or bine. tne entire period NECESSArY LO-CT 2c. ber under the law of imitation. In Short, i show. be adequate in contmuity, claamant Nas been in acdverse possession will not be sufficient. Unexplained stray or sporedic entries for a yeur or for a fer ref oe cuffietent and showd be ignored. Gurupadappa Mallappa Pattanashetti reported Phis Court in Donappa Revappa Kolli Vs. Se ~ title LL.R.1990 KAR page 610 has held that there should be necessary animus on the part of the person who Miereds. to perfect his title by adverse possession, apart from? actual ard CONTINUOUS Possession. -- K,
60. In AIR 1979 SCC pace 1742 in Padminibai Vs:
Tangavva and Others, the Hon'ble-Stupreme Court:has held that the plaintiffs husbard was. in exclusive and open to the defendant for a possession of the suit lands adversely period existing 12 Vears and hiS possession was never interrupted or disturbed ard therefore, the plaintiff's husband ney eu amon ne en m ge eg has acquired ownership bypre
61. In APR 1970°S.C page 1778 in State of West 'the. Dalhousie Institute Society, the Hon'ble e Court-has beld that the evidence shows that grantee "was In -open,-continuous and uninterrupted possession and be pee gn ey Su EL ns Se BL omy ee oy eee tt eager joyment of site tor a period of 60 years and has acquired bv adverse possession.
Bose Vs Commissioner of Ranchi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the law requires that the possession must be open and without any atten pt at coneealment, ae 7 ig: net necessary that the possession must 'be 80 effective 80 as TO bring it to the specific knowledge. of the "owner Such 4 "9 in Krishnamurthy S. Setlur Vs. DVS simha~Setty and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held tha 'ne Limitation Act Section 27 of Operates to exunguish the -rig voto property of a person who does not sue for its possession within the time allowed by law. tec awd nl, pd can cuits eT en rs de los span bes tardy ryasipy page day es He rent cxtinguished is the right which the lawful owne! as and agatnst whom-a claim for AGVErse possession is made and therefore, the plaintiff has to plead and prove the date on and t from. wrich he claims to be exclusive. continuous and "undisturbed possession. or whether possession is adverse or not is offen one of simple fact but it may also be question Of iaw or a mixed question of law and fact. 64, From the above decisions, it is cl adverse possession, the person possession must prove that. the contimuous, uninterrupted and hostile the present case, the cultivating the land in the vear 1969. In the vear 1968, the plaintiffs father has:
Survey No.1S ofoP-Doddanekkumndi, Krishnarajapuram Hobh, 3 eication has been forwarded to the Deputy Corimissiworter as per Ex.P.1. Thereafter, been prepared. Therealter, iPS sketches have endorsement-dated 28.9.1999 has been issued stating that | aed ewe hoe caaté ALIS@TION ATE Karnataka Land Revenue Act. the Deputy Commissioner, | Thereafter, in the year 1991], the for reeularisation im Form No SO. been considered. Therefore, the plaintiff has approachec.t WP NO. 2485 Court in committee to consider the application within four menth's.. These circumstances indicate thatthe plammrur and nis lather did not possess hostile aninius te possess-ihe land adverse to the interest of the ~ an 4 for regularisation of ubautporised cultivation. show that the plaintiff and his father have been cultivating the Tand simce 1960. [1 is not ig adverse to the imterest of the be hostile animus to possess tne iarrd adverse co the interest af the Government. [In the present possession. Im the present case. the evidence of PWs Pic S and the RTC extracts Exs.P.7 to P.i8 and the photogranies foxs. P22 to P28 show that t] and mis been cultivating the land. That is not sufficient te hold that. the plaintiff has perfected his title.by. adverse poss possession rust be . continuous," peaceful: open, uruinterrupted and hostile to the:rcal owrters Jn the present case, tne possession ef tie cand his hostile to the real owner. Therefore. ocannot be said that th olarntih bes trial Court has failed-te. censider the evidence on record in proper perspective and thnercfore, the impugned judgement of be sustained in law, respondent contended . that the plamtir and for more than 40 vears and the appellants have lost their "flights to recover the possession 3 idl GeMe Tit erie
--
Limitation Act anc therefore. the decree does mol call for interference. | do not find are: merit im the contention of the learned counsel! for the ponder. re ;
In the year 1960, the plaintiff and have, started os _ pos
-
° a vt = To pot peal on ~ ae dl ms few i sei a peu e vear 1065. the yatner, of -the plaintift has requested for grant oh land... exs:P.2 and PS have been prepared. Thereafter: the 28/9/1999 has been issued stating that the request for regularization will be considered alter: the amendment to the Karnataka Land Revermuc Act." Tnereafier, the plaintiff has given representation fof grant of lard and filed application for > CWllivation which has not beer considered, Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this Court ft PONE Tha lan eg ped La oe ee Flgaea se ey don om 1/7 POO6: Phis Court nas directed the Pour rrioriih's.
pmb feed ned commiltes.to. dispose of the application wi plaintiif, the cation has riot been sisidered. According to the defendants, the application has Poansiierecd arch repeated, recora-to Srigw ftmnat tre applic ELEGY +e fhe praimull to pursue the matter. if the application is not considered. U the application is considered and rejected, the slaintft to take appropriate action in accordance with law. lh PPPo} the year 2000, the 9 plaintiff has Aled suit. in O.S.No.7199/2000 and obtained injunction. ~. Right from. 1963, there is request for grant of land and regularisation of unauthorised cultivations. The plaintiff has-~ obtained injunction. Therefore, the appellants. have not taken an y steps lo recover the possession: WH does rot mean that the cover possession. Therefore, appellants have lost. righ there is nosmertin the contention that the appellants have lost right to recever possession. > GY... The plainf#? and his father have been cullti nd. since. 1960. The appellants have not taken any 7 Q "ex possession and the possession of cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law. To that extent, the interest of the plaintiff has to be protected, O8. Aecordingly oo rowel a rm peng i Nae wer cal is allowed and impugned judement and decree passed by the trial Court >in O.S No.7 1199/2000 is hereby set aside, in so far as it z eae to deciaration that the plant? hasvperfected his title byw adverse possession. The appellants i.e... the d the defendan LS are.
restrained from interfer:
ng with the. peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule propert\)by the plainviff except in accordance with law.
a 68, The parties shall bear their-own COSE. Bss/NME/Lr/ PB.