Case Note & Summary
The Regular First Appeal was filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.1386/1990, which decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The original plaintiff, L.C.Hanumanthappa (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), claimed absolute ownership of the suit schedule property, a building on site No.12/2, Old Site No.13, formed in land bearing Survey No.73, New Guddadahalli, Kempapura Agrahara, now called Kuvempunagara, I Main Road, B Street, Corporation Division No.33, Bangalore, measuring east to west 30 feet and south to north 60 feet. The plaintiff purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 5.5.1956 from one N.Anjanee Rao Sindhe. The plaintiff claimed that at the time of purchase, the western boundary was a house site bearing No.14, which was later converted into a road. The property bearing Site No.12, belonging to one H.Venkataramanappa, was on the eastern side, sold to Ahamadulla Khan, who constructed a building. Beyond the road on the western side was property No.15 belonging to Navarathanmal. The northern side had a main road and the southern side a conservancy lane. The plaintiff paid taxes to the BBMP. The defendant, H.B.Shivakumar, claimed no right or interest over any portion of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit, leading to the appeal. The High Court heard arguments from Shri Aditya B Sondhi, Senior Advocate for the appellant, and Shri Vivek Reddy, Senior Advocate for the respondents. The court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff had established title through the registered sale deed and tax receipts. The defendant's claim of adverse possession was not supported by pleadings or evidence; the defendant did not specify when possession became adverse or prove ouster of the true owner. The court held that mere long possession without animus possidendi does not constitute adverse possession. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Title and Ownership - Registered Sale Deed - The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership of suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 5.5.1956 and tax payment receipts. The court held that the registered sale deed and tax receipts prima facie establish title, and the defendant failed to prove any superior title or adverse possession. (Paras 4-6) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The defendant claimed adverse possession for over 12 years but did not plead or prove the date from which possession became adverse, nor did he establish ouster of the true owner. The court held that mere long possession without animus possidendi does not constitute adverse possession. (Paras 7-10) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC - The appeal was against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009 in O.S.No.1386/1990 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The High Court found no perversity or error in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-2, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession over the suit property and whether the trial court erred in decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009 passed in O.S.No.1386/1990 by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- burden of proof
- title by registered sale deed
- presumption of correctness of tax receipts
- limitation for adverse possession
