Bangalore District Court
Pushpa Bai vs Babu P on 1 April, 2026
KABC010170832011
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2026
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.5226/2011
Plaintiff: Smt.Pushpa Bai
w/o Krishnan
aged about 38 years
r/at No.37, 2nd Block
3rd Main, Sri M.V. Nagar
Opposite to Koshys Hospital
Ramamurthy Nagar
Bengaluru-560 016.
(By Sri P.N. Hegde, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendant: Mr.P. Babu
s/o Late Padmanabha
r/at No.671, "Premnivas"
Grape Garden
St.Thomas Town Post
Kammanahalli
Bengaluru-560 005.
(By Sri H.R. Ananthakrishnamurthy, Adv.)
Date of institution of the suit 21.07.2011
Nature of the suit For declaration regarding the
sale deed, possession and
permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 25.05.2012
of recording of evidence
2 O.S.No.5226/2011
Date on which the judgment 01.04.2026
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
14 08 10
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 executed in the name of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and for possession of the suit schedule property along with a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as hereunder:-
The suit schedule property measuring east-west 17 feet and north-south 27 feet in all measuring 459 sq.ft. was originally belonged to one Mr.V.Sachithanandam. Said Sri V. Sachithanandam through his GPA holder Smt.Godhavari, who is none other than his daughter, has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Mr.N. Sudhakar through the registered sale deed dated 08.04.1999 through the GPA dated 27.03.1999. Pursuant to the above sale transaction, all the property documents were transferred in the name of N. Sudhakar. The defendant, who had no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, started 3 O.S.No.5226/2011 interfering with the possession and occupation of Mr.N. Sudhakar, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff. The defendant was very powerful both politically and financially and therefore her brother Sudhakar could not take any action against him who has adopted a conciliation and mediation process.
Taking advantage of the condition and helplessness of Mr.N. Sudhakar during the year 2001, the defendant in a clandestine manner broke open the door of the house when Sudhakar was out of town and took over the possession. He has even inducted his henchman in the suit schedule property. All the efforts of Sudhakar to convince him and eject him went in vain. When this being the state of affairs, Mr.N.Sudhakar was forced to go back to his native at Krishnagiri in order to take care of his ailing daughter. However, before leaving Bangalore, Mr.N.Sudhakar has bequeathed the schedule property in favour of the present plaintiff through a registered gift deed dated 12.08.2010. Before that Mr.Sudhakar had paid the tax for the period from 2004 to 2009. Pursuant to the gift deed, the plaintiff become the owner of the suit schedule property. All her attempts to persuade the defendant to vacate and handover the suit schedule property went in vain and the defendant is illegally squatting over the suit schedule property and therefore when she has decided to approach this court applied for the certified copies of the 4 O.S.No.5226/2011 documents. During that time, she noticed that defendant has purported to have purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2011 on the basis of a purported power of attorney said to be executed in favour of M. Ramaiah by V. Sachithanandam.
The plaintiff has also pleaded that when she contacted Mr.V.Sachithanandam through her brother Sudhakar, he had revealed that he has not executed any power of attorney in favour of M. Ramaiah and thereby the defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff created the documents. The plaintiff, being the absolute owner of the suit property, she is entitled to seek the declaration that the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 executed in favour of the defendant is null and void and entitled for possession.
3. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by this Court, the defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he has denied the right, title and interest secured by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. He has even denied the power of attorney executed by Mr.V.Sachithanandam in favour of Godhavari and the sale deed executed by her in favour of N. Sudhakar. He has also denied the execution the gift deed by Sudhakar in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has contended that the suit is barred 5 O.S.No.5226/2011 by limitation and the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient.
The contention of the defendant is that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having been purchased it through a sale agreement dated 05.12.1998 executed by Mr.V.Sachithanandam in his favour and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to him along with delivery of all original documents. Thereafter, the khatha was transferred in the name of Mr.V.Sachithanandam and he has executed the sale deed in favour of this defendant through the power of attorney holder and thereby the defendant became owner in possession of the suit schedule property. He has pleaded that one Sri Vishwanathan was the tenant under Mr.V.Sachithanandam in the first floor of the schedule property and at the time of vacating the property, he has handed over the possession to this defendant as per the instructions of Mr.V.Sachithanandam and this defendant has paid advance amount of ₹45,000/- to said Vishwanathan. The possession of the plaintiff or her brother over the suit schedule property at any point of time is denied by the defendant.
After conclusion of the evidence when the case is set for arguments, the defendant has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement wherein he was intended to take up the defence of adverse possession. Said 6 O.S.No.5226/2011 application filed by the defendant in I.A.No.7 came to be dismissed by this Court in the order dated 18.10.2025. As against it, the defendant filed Writ Petition No.33963/2025 (GM-CPC) before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the defendant has admitted the title and ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. On such admission, the Hon'ble High Court has permitted to amend the written statement. In the amendment, the defendant has taken up the additional contention that he has been in actual and factual possession of the suit schedule property from 05.12.1998 to the knowledge of the plaintiff and her predecessor in title. He has also pleaded that the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property is hostile, continuous and with the knowledge of the plaintiff and her predecessor in title and therefore, the defendant has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession.
4. Considering the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues and additional issues:-
ISSUES
1) Deleted.
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that said Sudhakar had become owner and possessor of suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 08.04.1999?7 O.S.No.5226/2011
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has illegally took possession of suit property in the year 2001 by breaking open the lock?
4) Deleted.
5) Whether the defendant proves that Sachithanandam entered into agreement of sale on 05.12.1998 in respect of schedule property and handed over possession of suit property in his favour?
6) Whether the defendant proves that
Sachithanandam executed sale deed dated
31.03.2011 in his favour through GPA holder?
7) Deleted.
8) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 is null and void and not binding upon her?
9) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit property?
11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction?
12) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1) Whether the defendant proves that he has perfected title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession?
8 O.S.No.5226/2011
5. In support of case of the plaintiff, plaintiff is examined as PW1, Mr.V.Sachithanandam is examined as PW2. One K. Ramakrishnan an expert from Truth Labs, Chennai is examined as P.W.3. Ex.P.1 to 13 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, he himself is examined as DW1 and one R. Narayanappa is examined as DW2 and documents Ex.D.1 to 29 are marked.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. Findings of this Court on the above issues are as hereunder:-
Issue No.1 : Deleted.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3 : In the negative Issue No.4 : Deleted Issue No.5 : In the affirmative Issue No.6 : In the affirmative Issue No.7 : Deleted Issue No.8 : In the affirmative Issue No.9 : In the negative Issue No.10:- In the affirmative Issue No.11:- In the negative Addl. Issue No.1:- In the negative Issue No.12:- As per final order, for the following:9 O.S.No.5226/2011
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.3 & 5:- The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant on the ground that she became the owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of the gift deed executed by her brother N.Sudhakar on 12.08.2010. It is her further case that prior to that her brother N.Sudhakar purchased the suit schedule property through the sale deed dated 08.04.1999 from the erstwhile owner V. Sachithanandam. The contention of the plaintiff is that after the purchase of the suit schedule property by N.Sudhakar, during his absence in the year 2001, the defendant broke open the door lock of the suit schedule house and forcibly took possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is that the erstwhile owner of the suit schedule property Mr.V.Sachithanandam entered into agreement of sale dated 05.12.1998 with him in respect of the suit schedule property and handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to him on 05.12.1998 itself and the alleged dispossession in the year 2001 is totally false.
9. The specific case of the plaintiff is that her brother who was the owner of the suit schedule property was dispossessed by the defendant during the year 2001. The date or month of dispossession is not disclosed. The plaintiff who is examined as 10 O.S.No.5226/2011 PW1, has admitted in the cross-examination that she was not present at the time of dispossession. Her brother N.Sudhakar is also not examined to prove the alleged dispossession in the year 2001. The plaintiff has produced the sale deed executed by erstwhile owner Sachithanandam in favour of Sudhakar as per Ex.P1 recites that the possession was delivered to Sudhakar on the date of the sale deed itself. But, the said deed was not executed from V. Sachithanandam. It was executed by his wife Smt.Godhavari. Said Smt.Godhavari is also not examined. In the cross-examination of PW1, she has categorically admitted that Sachithanandam and Godhavari never resided in the suit schedule property. She has also admitted that after one Vishwanath, who was a tenant in the suit schedule property, vacated the suit schedule property, the defendant was residing in it. In this regard, the specific portion of the admission given by PW1 in the cross-examination dated 08.10.2015 is extracted for reference.
"It is true to suggest that said Sachithanandam and Godhavari never resided in the property. I do not know one Vishwanath residing in the first floor of the suit schedule property as a tenant and handed over his portion to the defendant as per say of Sachithanandam. It is true to suggest that defendant was residing in 11 O.S.No.5226/2011 the suit schedule property after vacating Vishwanath".
10. The erstwhile owner Sachithanandam is examined as PW2. In the course of his cross-examination, he has also admitted that when Vishwanath had vacated the house, the defendant had refunded the advance amount in favour of the tenant Vishwanath. He has further admitted that when he was residing at Bengaluru, the defendant was in possession of the property. He has pleaded his ignorance to the suggestion that Sudhakar was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time. In this regard, the specific portion of evidence given by PW2 Sachithanandam is extracted for reference:-
"5. I do not remember the exact area of the schedule property. It is true to suggest that in the schedule property there is a construction in ground floor and first floor. It is not true to suggest that at the time of execution of agreement of sale by me in favour of Babu, Vishwanath was the tenant in the first floor. (Witness states that he had not executed the agreement.) I do not know who is Vishwanath. I do not know the Vishwanath was tenant in first floor. The witness volunteers that the person who was working in P&T was residing in the first floor as a tenant. I do not know the said tenant is Vishwanath. I do not remember the total amount of advance received from such tenant including the rate of rent taken 12 O.S.No.5226/2011 by me. I do not know the Vishwanath paying the rent to Babu. It may me true that when Vishwanath vacated the house, Babu refunded the advance amount". ....
10. I do not remember that when I have given my last visit to schedule property. It may be true, when I was residing in Bangalore, Babu was in possession of schedule property ..................
11. I do not know that Sudhakar never is in possession of schedule property at any point of time".
11. The above admission of PW2 strongly probablises that before he executed the sale deed in favour of Sudhakar, one Vishwanath was a tenant in the suit schedule property and when he was vacated the suit schedule property the defendant has only refunded the security deposit to the tenant and later defendant occupied it. In support of this elicitation made from PW1 & 2, the defendant has also produced receipt issued by the tenant Vishwanath at Ex.D14, which probablises that the defendant has refunded the security deposit to the tenant. The defendant has also produced the rental agreement executed in between V.Sachithanandam and Vishwanathan on 01.03.1996. The plaintiff has not pleaded or proved as to when said Vishwanath has vacated the premises so as to deliver possession in favour of 13 O.S.No.5226/2011 her brother Sudhakar. Therefore, the evidence strongly probablises that one Vishwanath was a tenant under the original owner Sachithanandam from the year 1996 itself and when he had vacated the premises, the defendant occupied the suit schedule premises by repaying the security deposit to Vishwanathan.
12. It is also necessary to point that the defendant has produced the sale agreement dated 05.12.1998 executed by Sachithanandam in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. This is an unregistered agreement. The recitals of the sale agreement produced at Ex.D2 shows that the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the defendant on 05.12.1998 along with the original title deeds. Though this is an unregistered agreement, it was executed prior to 24.09.2001 and therefore non-registration of the sale agreement will not be a bar to recognize the delivery of possession. Though the execution of the sale agreement is disputed by the plaintiff and Sachithanandam, the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property including the sale deed dated 03.03.1993 executed by the vendors of Sachithanandam in his favour is produced by the defendant at Ex.D.1. The possession of original title deed with the defendant supports the execution of the agreement of sale dated 14 O.S.No.5226/2011 05.12.1998. Therefore, the evidence on record shows that earlier Sachithanandam has let out the suit premises in favour of tenant Vishwanathan and after he vacated the premises, the defendant occupied it. The evidence is also sufficient to show that sale agreement was also executed by Sachithanandam in favour of defendant on 05.12.1998 as per Ex.D2. There is no convincing evidence on record to show that Sudhakar was given actual physical possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time and he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property by the defendant. If Sudhakar was dispossessed from the suit schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff, certainly he would have lodged the complaint or would have reacted strongly. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has illegally took possession of the suit schedule property in the year 2001 by breaking open the door lock. The defendant has able to probablise that Sachithanandam had entered into a sale agreement dated 05.12.1998 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and thereaftter the tenant Vishwanath who was in occupation of the suit schedule property delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. The defendant has produced the letter issued by the tenant while vacating the suit property on 18.01.1999 as per Ex.D.14. There are no reasons to disbelieve these documents. 15 O.S.No.5226/2011 Therefore, though there is no evidence to show that the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the defendant on 05.12.1998 i.e., on the date of agreement of sale, there is evidence to show that the possession was delivered subsequently to the defendant and not to N. Sudhakar. Consequently, issue No.3 is answered in the negative and issue No.5 is answered partly in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.6:- The defendant has taken up a contention that Sachithanandam had executed a sale deed dated 31.03.2011 in his favour through his GPA holder. In support of the said contention, the defendant has produced the agreement of sale executed by Sachithanandam at Ex.D2 for which the court has already recorded finding while answering issue No.5. The defendant has produced the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 executed by the GPA holder of Sachithanandam one Mr Ramaiah at Ex.D6. the power of attorney executed by Sachithanandam in favour of Ramaiah is also produced at Ex.D3. Though the execution of the Ex.D3 GPA by Sachithanandam in favour of Ramaiah is disputed by the plaintiff as well as Sachithanandam, the evidence given by PW2 Sachithanandam in this regard is not found trustworthy. The reason is that he had handed over the original title deed of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant which is produced by the defendant at Ex.D1. The 16 O.S.No.5226/2011 tenant who was in occupation of the suit schedule property was also vacated by the defendant by paying his security deposit. If the signature of Sachithanandam was forged in Ex.D3, he would have reacted strongly. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that Sachithanandam had executed a sale deed dated 31.03.2011 in favour of the defendant through his GPA holder Ramaiah. Hence, issue No.6 is answered in the affirmative.
14. Issue No.9 and Additional Issue No.1:- The plaintiff has sought mainly two reliefs. The first relief is to declare that the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 registered in the name of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property said to be executed by original owner Sachithanandam through his GPA holder Ramaiah is null and void. The second relief is for the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. The sale deed challenged by the plaintiff is dated 31.03.2011 and the present suit came to be filed on 21.07.2011. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the first relief sought in respect of the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 is well within the period of limitation. The contention of the defendant is that plaintiff's predecessor in title Mr.N. Sudhakar claiming to have purchased the suit schedule property through the sale deed 08.04.1999 did not file the suit and the present suit instituted by the plaintiff on 21.07.2011 is 17 O.S.No.5226/2011 after filed 12 years and 4 months and therefore the suit is totally barred by limitation. While the learned counsel appearing for the defendant has contended that the relief sought in the present suit is covered under Article 58 and if not under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has contended that the relief sought in the present suit is covered under Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963. Therefore, at the first instance, the Court is required to record a finding as to the applicability of the relevant article in respect of the reliefs sought in the suit.
15. Admittedly in the present suit, the plaintiff has not sought the relief of declaration of title. Article 64 of the Limitation Act 1963 is in respect of the recovery of possession based on the previous possession and not on the title. Article 65 is for possession based on title. The question for consideration is whether the present suit can be considered as a suit based on previous possession or based on title. While answering issue No.3 & 5, this court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that late Sudhakar was dispossessed from the suit schedule property. Therefore, the suit cannot be based on previous possession within the ambit of Article 64 of the Limitation Act 1963.
18 O.S.No.5226/2011
16. As stated above, in the present case, the plaintiff has not sought the relief of declaration of title. But, when the case was in the stage of arguments, the defendant has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in I.A.No.7 for amending the written statement and thereby to plead the defence of adverse possession which came to be dismissed by this court in the order dated 18.10.2025. As against it, the defendant approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.33963/2025 (GM- CPC) and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court Court, the defendant has filed a memo before the Hon'ble High Court admitting the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. This is specifically recorded by the Hon'ble High Court Court in the order dated 4 th December 2025 as hereunder:-
"After substantial arguments were addressed by learned counsels for parties, learned counsel for petitioner- defendant filed a memo, which reads as under:
"It is repsectfully submitted that the p/defendant admitting the ownerhsip of the schedule property claimed by the plaintiff/respondent without prejudice to the legal right to claim adverse possession. The memo may kindly be taken on record, in the interest of justice".
19 O.S.No.5226/2011
11. The petitioner- defendant files a memo, wherein he has admitted the ownership of the schedule property as claimed by the plaintiff without prejudice to the legal right to claim adverse possession".
17. Pursuant to the Memo filed as above and the admission of the title of the plaintiff by the defendant , the writ petition filed by the defendant came to be allowed and he is permitted to amend the written statement and plead the defence of adverse possession. The specific observation made by the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.33963/2025 (GM-CPC) dated 04.12.2025 is extracted for ready reference:-
"i. This petition is allowed;
ii. The impugned order dated 18.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.5226/2011 by X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.VII is allowed;
iii. The petitioner-defendant is permitted to carry out the amendment as sought for in I.A.No.VII;
iv. It is needless to mention that the petitioner-defendant, in pursuance to the filing of this memo, categorically admits the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit schedule property".20 O.S.No.5226/2011
18. In view of the above admission of the defendant about the title of the plaintiff, whether this suit can be considered as a suit based on title so as to fall within the ambit of Article 65 of Limitation Act 1963 is a point for consideration. In this regard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Annakili v/s A.Vedanayagam and others (2007)14 SCC 308, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that when the title of the plaintiff is established or already adjudicated, it is not obligatory on the part of the plaintiff who seeks possession to file a suit for declaration of title also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that if the title of the plaintiff was already adjudicated, the suit filed for recovery of possession shall be treated as a suit based on title within the meaning of Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963. Therefore, in para No.23 of the said judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:-
"We cannot accept the submission of Mr.Dayan Krishnan that it was obligatory on the part of the respondent-plaintiffs seeking possession to file a suit for declaration of their title also. As the title of the respondents in the suit property had already been adjudicated upon, a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of the said title attracted Article 65 of the Schedule appended to the 21 O.S.No.5226/2011 Limitation Act, 1963. In terms of the said provision, it was for the appellant-defendant to show that she and her predecessor had been in possession of the suit property on the basis of the hostile title and as a result whereof the title of the respondent-plaintiffs stood extinguished".
In view of the above ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though the plaintiff has not sought the relief of declaration of title as the defendant has categorically admitted the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the suit filed for recovery of possession shall be construed as a suit based on title and therefore this court holds that this is a suit for recovery of possession based on title within the meaning and falls within the scope of Article 65 of Limitation Act 1963.
19. The plaintiff has proved and it is admitted by the defendant that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. Under Article 142 of Old Limitation Act for any suit for recovery of possession on the basis of the title, the plaintiff was required not only to prove the title, but also she had to prove that she was in possession of the property within 12 years of the date of the institution of the suit. But, this position is changed by the introduction of Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963 and now when a suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established, unless the defendant proves adverse possession, 22 O.S.No.5226/2011 the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. This is clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indira v/s Armugam and another (1998)1 SCC 614 and also in the case of Saroop Singh v/s Bantu and others (2005)8 SCC 330. Hence, though while answering issue No.3, this court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the dispossession of her predecessor in title, it will not affect the right of the plaintiff to seek possession of the property unless the defendant is able to establish adverse possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, even if it is considered that by virtue of the sale deed dated 08.04.1999, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff was not put in possession of the suit schedule property, when the plaintiff has able to establish her title over the suit schedule property, the entire burden is on the defendant to prove the adverse possession.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant has vehemently contended that when the plaintiff is relying upon the sale deed dated 08.04.1999 of her predecessor in title and as the suit came to be filed after 12 years without having possession at any point of time, the suit itself is barred by limitation. But, when the suit filed for possession is based on title, the period of limitation of 12 years begins to run not from the date of the sale deed. It is from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Therefore, irrespective of the 23 O.S.No.5226/2011 absence of delivery of possession either to the plaintiff or her predecessor in title, when she is able to establish her title, she is entitled to sue for recovery of possession without any time limit. The only defence available to the defendant is to prove the adverse possession. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be considered as barred by limitation unless the defendant is able to prove adverse possession over the suit schedule property.
21. Adverse possession is a special defence. It is required to be pleaded and proved strictly. It is well settled law from catena of decisions including from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v/s Manjit Kaur and others (2019)8 SCC 729, the possession, however, for any length of time will not automatically partake the character of adverse possession, unless the necessary ingredients are established. It is also well settled law that the party who claims adverse possession is required to prove that when he came into possession of the property, when the possession becomes adverse by establishing that the possession is adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity adverse to the owner in denial of the title of the owner to his knowledge, visible, notorious and peaceful. In this regard, in the above decision in para No.23 the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon its previous decision rendered in the case of Karnataka Board of 24 O.S.No.5226/2011 Work v/s Union of India (2004)10 SCC 779 held that a person who is trying to defeat the rights of true owner has no equities in his favour and heavy burden lies on him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession in the following words:-
"30. In Karnataka Board of Wakf, the law was stated, thus:(SCCp.785,para11) '11. 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. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, Parsinni v. Sukhi and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important 25 O.S.No.5226/2011 factors that are to be accounted in case of this nature. 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 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' ".
22. No doubt in the present case, the defendant after the completion of the evidence amended the written statement and pleaded the defence of adverse possession by incorporating paras No.15(a) in the written statement as hereunder:-
"Without prejudice to the submission made aforesaid and in the alternative it is respectfully submitted that this defendant has been in actual and factual possession of the properties described in the schedule to the plaint from 05.12.1998 to the knowledge of the plaintiff and her predecessors in title. The possession of the defendant is upon hostile and continuous of the knowledge of the plaintiff and her predecessors in title. Nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are made out.26 O.S.No.5226/2011
The defendant is perfected title as adverse possession".
23. In the previous paragraphs of the written statement, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff. Further, the incorporated amendment commences with a word 'without prejudice to the submission made aforesaid and in the alternative'. The defence raised in the first portion of the written statement is inconsistent with the incorporated amended portion of the written statement in para No.15(a). Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has taken up a contention that these two versions of defences are mutually destructive. It is important to note that possession of the defendant may be for whatever long period will not automatically partake the character of adverse possession until the possession become adverse. Therefore, in a case of this nature when the defendant pleads his adverse possession, it is not sufficient to merely plead that the possession was adverse. The defendant is expected to plead on which date or on happening of event the possession becomes adverse. In the present case, the original owner of the property has executed a sale agreement in favour of the defendant on 05.12.1998 as per Ex.D2. Though in the agreement, there is a recital that the possession was delivered on 05.12.1998, the Ex.D14 letter produced by the defendant shows that a tenant was in occupation 27 O.S.No.5226/2011 of it by name Vishwanathan. Ex.D14 shows that the possession was delivered to him on 18.01.1999 and not on the date of the sale agreement. In view of this discrepancy the defendant has not pleaded the date or month as to when exactly he occupied the suit schedule property. Further, it is also necessary to note that even if the defendant had occupied the suit schedule property on 18.01.1999 as shown in Ex.D14, as on 18.01.1999, the plaintiff or her predecessor was not the owner of the suit schedule property. The predecessor in title of the plaintiff had acquired title over the suit schedule property only through the sale deed dated 08.04.1999. It is also necessary to note that subsequently the defendant has obtained the sale deed pursuant to Ex.D2 sale agreement on 31.03.2011 as per Ex.D6. In Ex.D6, there is a specific recital that the actual physical possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him as on this sale deed dated 31.03.2011. Again, there is inconsistency in the documents produced by the defendant as to when he exactly the defendant came into possession of the suit schedule property. Such being the case, the defendant should have pleaded as to from which date or on happening of which event the possession become adverse to calculate the period of 12 years. This is not done by the defendant. This is one aspect.
28 O.S.No.5226/2011
24. During the course of arguments, the court had expressed a doubt as to whether the date of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff on 08.04.1999 can be considered as a date of knowledge of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff about the adverse possession of the defendant. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Uttam Chand (Dead) by LRs v/s Nathu Ram (Dead) by Lrs (2020)11 SCC 263 wherein the plaintiff had purchased the property in a public auction on 21.03.1964 and sale certificate was issued to him on 04.01.1965. He had instituted a suit for possession on 17.02.1979, alleging that the defendants are in unauthorised occupation of the property. In the said suit, though the court had recorded a finding that the defendant who was in possession of the suit schedule property even prior to the date of public auction, still the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the period of limitation under Article 65 of Limitation Act 1963 cannot start from the date of the purchase of the suit property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that mere possession of land however long it may be would not ripe into possessory title, unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner and therefore, the assertion 29 O.S.No.5226/2011 of the title must be clear and uneqivocal. In a similar case, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in the case of Radheshyam Pathak (dead) through legal representatives v/s Smt.Usha Mishra and others 2021 SCC OnLine Chhattisgarh 2157 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff also negated the contention of the party that the suit should have been filed within 12 years from the date of the sale deed holding that when the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit schedule property, it was for the defendant to establish the plea of adverse possession which they have half heartedly taken and did not plead the essential ingredients of possession in the following words:-
"15. The plaintiff's suit was for recovery of possession based on title and the plaintiff has proved his title as held by the trial Court and duly affirmed by the first appellate Court. According to Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as noticed herein-above, once the plaintiff proves his title then the defendant has to plead and establish the plea of adverse possession, but in this case, the defendants have asserted that they are title holders and in case they are not found to be title holders, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Plea of title and adverse possession, both, are mutually destructive plea and inconsistent as well. Therefore, the 30 O.S.No.5226/2011 defendants cannot be permitted to raise mutually destructive plea. However, since the plaintiff has claimed and proved his title over the suit house as held by both the Courts below, it was incumbent on the part of the defendants to plead and establish the plea of adverse possession which they have neither seriously pleaded not established.
16. The first appellate Court without noticing the provisions contained in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, came to a wholly erroneous finding that suit ought to have been filed within 12 years from 26.11.1976 (Ex.P.1) i.e., the date when the sale deed was executed by the erstwhile seller in favour of the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff has proved title over the suit land, it was for the defendants to plead and establish the plea of adverse possession which they have halfheartedly taken and did not plead the essential ingredients of adverse possession that are nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and failed to establish the same, yet the first appellate Court held that the suit is barred by limitation".
25. It is settled by the catena of legal precedents that animus possidendi to hold the property adverse to the title of the true owner must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. The starting point of limitation to take shelter under Article 65 of the Limitation Act to a contender of adverse 31 O.S.No.5226/2011 possession does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff, but only commences from the date the defendant's possession become adverse. Therefore, in the decision Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Annakili v/s A. Vedanayagam and others (2007)14 SCC 308 referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder:-
"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 the 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 does not ripen into a title.
25. In Saroop Singh vs Banto in which one of us was a member, this Court held: (SCC p.340, paras 29-30) "29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak).
30. 'Animus Possidendi' is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the 32 O.S.No.5226/2011 person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence".
26. The above legal position stresses a most important ingradient of animus possidendi. In the written statement, the defendant has not specifically pleaded how and when his possession become adverse. It is also necessary to point out that it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that her predecessor in title had repeatedly persuaded the defendant to vacate the premises. It is not the contention of the plaintiff that her predecessor in title kept quiet in spite of knowing the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. The repeated insistance and persuasion made by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff to the defendant to vacate the premises is not denied by the defendant in specific words. In other words, it is not the contention of the defendant that the predecessor of the plaintiff in title has never insisted him or persuaded him to vacate the premises. Therefore, the evidence on record do not indicate active silence of the plaintiff or her predecessor in title with regard to the unauthorised possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the possession of the defendant merely shows that he is in possession of the suit schedule property from the year 1999 or from the date of the sale deed. 33 O.S.No.5226/2011 There is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the possession of the defendant has ripened to the status of adverse possession to the plaintiff or her predecessor in title.
27. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has also pointed out an important legal aspect with regard to the nature of the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. As rightly contented by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff the possession claimed by the defendant was on the basis of the sale agreement dated 05.12.1998. If a person is put in possession of the immovable property on the basis of a sale agreement, such possession is in performance of a contract and governed by Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Whether a person put in possession of the property under an agreement of sale can claim it as an adverse possession is also an important legal aspect.
28. As stated above, the sale deed of the defendant dated 31.03.2011 indicates that the actual possession was delivered only on 31.03.2011. Irrespective of this inconsistency in these two documents produced by the defendant, when a person put in possession of the property on part performance, such possession cannot be considered as an adverse possession unless the defendant is specifically able to show the conduct of the defendant was such that he wanted to enjoy the property adverse 34 O.S.No.5226/2011 to the interest of the person who had a title over it. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of Moinuddin v/s Chandrappa @ Chandappa and another in RFA No.7382/2011 (INJ) dated 29.08.2023 by the Kalaburagi Bench of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that plea of adverse possession and retaining the possession by operation of Section 53A of T.P. Act are inconsistent with each other and a person who contend that he is in possession under agreement and if he continues to remain in possession till the date of the suit, the plea of adverse possession is not available to him until he has asserted and pointed out the hostile animus. In this regard, in para No.24 of the judgment the Hon'ble High Court has held as hereunder:-
"The Apex Court has held that the plea of adverse possession and retaining the possession by operation of Section 53A of the T.P. Act are in consistent with each other and further held that, when a person contends that he is in possession under an agreement and continue to remain in possession till the date of the suit, the plea of adverse possession is not available to the defendants unless and until he has asserted and pointed out and hostile animus 35 O.S.No.5226/2011 of retaining possession as an owner after getting in possession of the land. In the light of the law declared by the Apex Court and the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the mere possession for a long time does not convert the permissive possession into adverse possession and accordingly, the first appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the substantial questions of law framed by this Court need to be answered in favour of the appellant".
The above observation of the Hon'ble High Court also supports the contention of the plaintiff that when the defendant was put in possession of part performance of the contract he cannot assert the date of sale agreement as the date to record the period of adverse possession as required under Article 65 of Limitation Act 1963.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the plea of adverse possession being a special plea is required to be proved strictly and a person who claims adverse possession has no equity in his favour. Under these circumstances, even if it is considered that two views are possible, the court is constrained to hold that the defendant has not able to establish the adverse possession over the suit schedule property and the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the 36 O.S.No.5226/2011 period of limitation. Consequently, issue No.9 and additional issue No.1 are answered in the negative.
30. Issues No.2,8,10, 11 & 12:- In view of the answers given to the above issues, the plaintiff has proved her title over the suit schedule property and able to establish that the suit filed by her is within the period of limitation. The defendant has failed to prove the adverse possession. Issue No.2 is casting burden on the plaintiff to establish that her predecessor in title N.Sudhakar became the owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed dated 08.04.1999. It is proved that he became the owner of the suit schedule property through the sale deed dated 08.04.1999. But, while answering the other issues, the court has held that the possession was not delivered to him. Therefore, issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
31. The defendant has failed to establish the adverse possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property. The sale deed executed in favour of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff was dated 08.04.1999. The sale deed executed in favour of the defendant is dated 31.03.2011. Therefore, when the sale deed executed in favour of N.Sudhakar was held to be valid, the title of the plaintiff is established and the sale deed dated 31.03.2011 executed subsequently did not convey any right or title in favour of the 37 O.S.No.5226/2011 defendant. Hence, it is required to be declared as null and void. Consequently issue No.8 is answered in the affirmative.
32. The plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The possession of the suit schedule property is still with the defendant. It is required to be recovered from the defendant. Therefore, there is no need to grant an order of permanent prohibitory injunction. Hence issue No.11 is answered in the negative.
33. In view of this, the suit is liable to be decreed. However, the evidence on record shows that the defendant has paid consideration amount to the vendor who had defrauded him. The evidence also shows that the defendant has paid a sum of ₹45,000/- towards the security deposit to the tenant. Therefore, while decreeing the suit, it is not proper to direct the defendant to pay cost. The plaintiff or her predecessor have not sought the relief by filing the suit immediately after its purchase. Further, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff has purchased the property when the possession was with the defendant. Taking note of these circumstances, in the opinion of the court, when the defendant is in the possession of the suit schedule property immediate delivery of possession will cause hardship to him and it would be just and proper to give 6 months time to the defendant 38 O.S.No.5226/2011 to deliver the possession. On these observations, the following order is passed ORDER Suit is decreed without cost.
The defendant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within six months from today.
The sale deed dated 31.03.2011 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Banaswadi as Document No.BNS-1-09275-2010-11 in Book No.1 stored in CD No.BNSD87 in the name of the defendant is declared as null and void.
Registry shall forward the copy of the decree to the Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi to make necessary entries in the concerned register as required under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act 1963.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Dictaphone and Speech to Text App, carried out corrections by the Senior Sheristedar, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2026) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : Pushpa Bai PW.2 : V. Sachithanandam PW.3 : Prof.K. Ramakrishnan List of documents got exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : GPA dtd:27.03.1999 39 O.S.No.5226/2011 Ex.P1(a): Signature of PW2 Ex.P2 : Registered sale deed dt:8.4.99 Ex.P3 : Encumbrance certificate dt:8.4.99 Ex.P4 : 4 tax paid receipts Ex.P5 : Gift deed Ex.P6 : Two encumbrance certificates Ex.P7 : Copy of sale deed dt:31.03.2011 Ex.P8 : Original affidavit Ex.P8(a): Signature of PW2 Ex.P9 : Confirmation of sale Ex.P9(a): Signature of PW2 Ex.P10: Letter dt:06.08.2011 Ex.P11: Covering letter Ex.P11(a): Signature of PW2 Ex.P12: Declaration cum affidavit along with postal cover dtd:30.08.2011 Ex.P12(a): Signature of PW2 Ex.P13: Report of Truth labs Ex.P13(a): Comparison chart of B. Sachithanandam Ex.P13(b): Copy of GPA Ex.P13(c): Copy of affidavit Ex.P13(d): Copy of declaration affidavit List of witnesses examined for the defendant: D.W1 : P. Babu D.W.2 : R.Narayanappa List of documents exhibited for defendant: Ex.D1 : Sale deed Ex.D2 : Sale agreement Ex.D3 : General Power of Attorney Ex.D4 : Khatha extract Ex.D5 : Tax paid receipt 40 O.S.No.5226/2011 Ex.D6 : Sale deed Ex.D7 : Encumbrance certificate Ex.D8 to D.10: Acknowledgments Ex.D11 to D.13: Tax paid receipts Ex.D14 : Letter dated: 18.1.1999 Ex.D15 : Tenancy agreement Ex.D16 : Property settlement dated: 3.10.2011 Ex.D17 : Certified copy of B report extract Ex.D18 : Certified copy of postal receipt Ex.D19 : Certified copy of FIR Ex.D20 : Certified copy of police complaint Ex.D21 : Certified copy of Gift deed Ex.D22 & 23: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney Ex.D24 & 25: Certified copy of sale deeds Ex.D26 : Police statement Ex.D27 : Certified copy of property list Ex.D28 : Certified copy of Mahazar Ex.D29 : Finger Print Examination Report Ex.D.29(a): Thumb impression of D.2 X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYA VIJAYA
KUMAR RAI B
KUMAR Date:
RAI B 2026.04.04
18:01:17
+0530