Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 passed by the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari in O.S.No.211/2015, decreeing the suit for declaration and mesne profits. The plaintiff, Smt. G. Dhanalakshmi, filed the suit claiming absolute ownership of the suit schedule property based on a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2006 executed by the previous owner. The defendants, who are the legal representatives of the original defendant C.B. Venkateshulu and others, contested the suit claiming that they had been in possession of the property for over 12 years and had perfected title by adverse possession. The trial court, after considering the evidence, held that the plaintiff had proved her title and that the defendants failed to establish adverse possession. The court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner and directed the defendants to deliver possession and pay mesne profits. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, heard the appeal and reserved judgment on 02.04.2025, delivering it on 09.04.2025. The court framed the issue of whether the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession. The appellants argued that their long possession and payment of taxes proved adverse possession. The respondent contended that the sale deed was valid and the defendants were mere permissive occupants. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff had produced the registered sale deed and revenue records showing her name, establishing prima facie title. The defendants failed to prove the date of ouster or hostile possession for the statutory period of 12 years. The court held that mere long possession without animus possidendi does not constitute adverse possession. The court also upheld the award of mesne profits as the defendants were in wrongful possession. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - Plaintiff must prove title; once prima facie title is shown, burden shifts to defendant claiming adverse possession - Plaintiff established title through registered sale deed and possession, defendants failed to prove hostile possession for 12 years - Held that plaintiff is absolute owner (Paras 10-15). B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Adverse Possession - Section 65 - To claim adverse possession, defendant must prove ouster of true owner and continuous, hostile, exclusive possession for statutory period - Defendants' mere long possession without animus possidendi is insufficient - Held that defendants failed to establish adverse possession (Paras 16-20). C) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Entitlement to mesne profits requires proof of wrongful possession and loss of profits - Trial court's award of mesne profits upheld as defendants were in wrongful possession - Held that plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendants have perfected title by adverse possession over the suit property and whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of ownership and mesne profits.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.211/2015 by the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse Possession
- Burden of Proof
- Declaration of Title
- Mesne Profits
- Limitation Act
- 1963 Section 65
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 Section 96 Order 41 Rule 1
