- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200293 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. MANIKRAO S/O LATE DAMODHAR BACHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: BIDAR. 2. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE DAMODHAR BACHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: BIDAR. 3. SATYANARAYAN S/O LATE DAMODHAR BACHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAVI B.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O LATE SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KADWAD VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIS: BIDAR BIDAR – 585 401. 2. RAVI S/O SRIMANTH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KADWAD VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST : BIDAR BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT IN R.A.NO.35/2016 DATED 05.12.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., AT BIDAR, THEREBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN O.S.NO.266/2010 DATED 19.09.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.-II AT BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS / PLAINTIFFS IN ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff claimed right over the agricultural land in Survey No.39, measuring 31 guntas, situated at Kadwad, taluk and district Bidar. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the husband of the defendant was the owner of the property and he had orally leased the suit property to the plaintiff twenty years prior to the institution of the suit. Even after the demise of the husband of the defendant the plaintiff was in possession of the property and after the death of the husband, the defendant executed a sale deed on 06.07.1998 for a consideration of Rs.31,000/- and the plaintiff claims that, he is in lawful possession from 06.07.1998 to the knowledge of the defendant and his possession is peaceful and further states that, in the year 2010, the defendant interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is filed claiming declaration of ownership by way of adverse possession. 3. The defendant resisted the suit and denied the plaintiff’s contention and contended that, the defendant is in possession of the property. Defendant denied the execution of the sale deed, as well as the oral lease said to have been created by the husband of the defendant. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit rejecting the plaintiff’s contention. The first appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that, the sale deed dated 06.07.1998 is un-registered and the said document can be looked into for collateral purpose to ascertain the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and the plaintiff is in possession since 06.07.1998, under a document which is invalid. Hence, from that date, the possession of the plaintiff is to be treated as adverse to the interest of the defendant, and on expiry of 12 years from - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 06.07.1998, the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. 6. Learned counsel would submit that, both Courts erred in dismissing the suit/appeal on the premise that the plaintiff cannot seek relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession and he would submit that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, even the plaintiff can seek a declaration of title by way of adverse possession and this aspect has not been considered by the trial Court, as well as by the appellate Court. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent on the other hand, would contend that, the alleged sale deed dated 06.07.1998 is not established and the same is not admitted in the evidence for want of registration. The defendant never sold the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant never received sale consideration amount. The defendant is in possession of the suit land and the alleged oral lease is also disputed and not established, as such, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 first appellate Court is justified in confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the sale deed dated 06.07.1998 is not registered. Unless there is a registered sale deed, the plaintiff cannot acquire title over the suit land. The question is, whether the plaintiff has acquired title over the property by way of adverse possession? 10. It is well settled position of law that, the possession for any length of time, without there being any intention to hold the property adversely to the interest of the real owner, and that too to the knowledge of the real owner by denying the title of the real owner, does not confer title in favour of the plaintiff and does not extinguish the title of the real owner. 11. To establish adverse possession, there has to be a specific pleading that the plaintiff’s possession is open, adverse, hostile to the knowledge of the defendant for more - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 than 12 years. That plea is missing in the plaint, so also in the evidence. The plaintiff claims to be a lawful owner under an unregistered sale deed dated 06.07.1998. Under these circumstances, both Courts have rightly held that, the plaintiff has not established his title and possession over the suit land. 12. The revenue record would also indicate that, the defendant is in possession of the property. It is also relevant to note that, the defendant has acquired title over the property in the year 2005 when the land is re-granted to the defendant. The suit is filed in the year 2010 and the declaration of title by way of adverse possession cannot be granted as prescribed period of twelve years has not been completed since the defendant acquired title by way of re- grant in the year 2005. 13. Under these circumstances, the very suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is totally misconstrued. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2336 RSA No. 200293 of 2022 14. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that, the suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is maintainable in view of the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that, in the present case, basic minimum requirement to claim title by way of adverse possession is not pleaded and not established. 15. There is no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration of the appeal. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35