- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100338 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. KADAPPA JAGADAL AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 2. SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. NINGAPPA SHIROL AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 3. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. KADAPPA JAGADAL AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SIDAGOUND TELSANG AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 5. SRI. VITHAL S/O. KADAPPA JAGADAL AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. 6. SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O. MAYAPPA ADARAGI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT-587101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMKHANDI-587301. 3. CHETAN S/O. ARJUN HULLYAL CALLING HIMSELF AS CHETAN ADOPTED SON OF KADAPPA JAGADAL, AGE 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL FATHER ARJUN S/O. SANGAPPA HULLYAL, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INGALGI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ ORDER 41 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This regular first appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.66/2015 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial court. 3. The Appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants. 4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal are as under. The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal, who died on 10.12.1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs. The deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After his demise, the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs, inherited the property left by the deceased Kadappa. Initially, the suit property was owned and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 possessed by Hanmanthrao Balappa Desai, who was the then landlord of the suit schedule property. The deceased Kadappa was in possession of the suit schedule property before 1950 till his death. The mutation was effected in the name of Kadappa. After the demise of Kadappa, the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs, continued the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Defendant No.3 is in no way concerned either to the plaintiffs or to the suit property and illegally mutated his name to the portion of the suit schedule property, i.e., to the extent of 5 acres under the guise that, the suit property was granted to Kadappa Allappa Jagadal, who was no-way concerned to any portion of the suit property. The Plaintiffs were not a party to the revenue proceedings initiated by defendant No.3. The revenue entries in the name of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Based on false entry in the RTC of the suit schedule property, defendant No.3 started to illegally obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property prior to 20.12.2014 by denying the ownership and possessory right of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got issued a notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants. Despite service of notice, the defendants did not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 reply to the notice. It is stated that, the suit property was owned and possessed by Hanumantrao Balappa Desai with the consent of the deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal. None of the legal representatives of the deceased Hanumantrao Desai have objected the same. Thus, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Hence, on these grounds prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement denying the entire averments made in the paint. It is contended that, plaintiff No.1 is not the wife of Kadappa Jagadal. His real wife is Laxmibai. Kadappa and Laxmibai had a daughter by name of Yamanawwa. The said Yamanawwa was given in marriage to one Sadashiv Latur. The plaintiffs have shown the father’s name of Kadappa as “Mallappa”, but actually, Kadappa’s father name is “Allappa”. The Assistant Commissioner of Jamkhandi granted the suit property measuring 5 acres in favour of Kadappa, i.e., adopted father of defendant No.3 in 2009. Defendant No.3 was adopted by Kadappa, and the registered adoption deed was executed, and on the basis of the same, the name of defendant No.3 was entered in the revenue records. He is growing sugarcane and turmeric crops. The plaintiffs are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 nowhere concerned with the defendant’s family, and they are strangers to the defendant’s family. The plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial Court, based on the aforesaid pleadings, framed the following issues; 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession? 2. Whether the plaintiffs proves, that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit? 3. Whether plaintiffs proves the alleged interference by the defendants? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs sought for? 5. What order or decree? 7. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1, examined one witness as P.W.2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. Defendant No.3 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 was examined as D.W.1, also examined one witness as D.W.2 and marked 11 documents as Exs.D1 to D11. The trial court, after recording the evidence, hearing both the sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the negative, and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.66/2015, filed this Regular First Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that, Mallappa was in possession of the suit schedule property since long back, i.e., prior to 1950, and his name was entered in the revenue records by virtue of M.E.No.389. He submits that, Kadappa died on 10.12.1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs. After the demise of Kadappa, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property as the owners without any obstruction or interference. Thus, the plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession. He submits that, the trial court - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 committed an error in recording a finding that, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and also failed to prove that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is arbitrary, and erroneous. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, pray to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.3 submits that, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiffs have not proved the required ingredients of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. He submits that, plaintiffs have not admitted the title of defendant No.3 over the suit schedule property. In the absence of admission of the title of defendant No.3 over the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession. He submits that, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that would arise for our consideration are; 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have acquired title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is perverse and arbitrary? 3. What order or decree? Point No.1. 12. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1, was examined as P.W.1. She deposed that, suit schedule property was originally owned and possessed by one Hanmantrao Desai. Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property long back, i.e., prior to 1950, and the name of Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was entered in the revenue records. Kadappa died on 10.12.1998, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Defendant No.3 is in no way concerned with the suit schedule property, defendant No.3 illegally mutated his name to the extent of 5 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 acres under the guise that, the suit property was granted to one Kadappa Allappa Jagadal. Defendant No.3 created the records. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, got produced the documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P6, which are the RTC extracts, which disclose that, the property stood in the name of Kadappa Jagadal. Ex.P6 is the surviving family members certificate, which discloses that, the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal. Ex.P7 is the legal notice issued under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants on 30.12.2014, calling upon defendant No.1 to delete the name of defendant No.3 from column No.12 of RTC, failing which, the plaintiffs would initiate a suit against the defendants. The said notice was duly served on defendant Nos.1 and 2. Exs.P8 to P12 are the postal receipts and acknowledgements. Ex.P13 is the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in favour of plaintiff No.1 to depose on their behalf. Exs.P14 to 16 are the mutation extracts. Ex.P17 is the genealogical tree of the family of the plaintiffs. 13. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 admits that, the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.217 measuring 15 acres 17 guntas was owned by Hanmanthrao Desai and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 Kadappa was cultivating the suit schedule property. Kadappa Allappa Jagadal filed form No.7 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Kadappa Allappa Jagadal to the extent of 5 acres of land. She denied that, Kadappa Jagadal had a wife by the name of Laxmibai and they had a daughter by the name of Yamanawwa and, who was given in marriage to one Sadashiv Latur. Yamanawwa and Sadashiv had no issues. She pleads her ignorance about the adoption of defendant No.3 by Kadappa Allappa Jagadal. She denied that, she had not produced any documents to show that, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Kadappa. She denied that, the defendants have been created Ex.P6. She admits that, defendant No.3 is growing sugarcane in the suit land and denies that, since the date of the grant of the suit property, defendant No.3 and his father have been in possession of the suit property. She denied that, the plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish their possession over the suit schedule property. She admits that, Kadappa’s father’s name is Allappa. 14. Further, plaintiffs have examined one witness by the name of Irayya as P.W.2, who has deposed that, plaintiffs - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 are the legal representatives of deceased Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal, who died on 10.12.1998. Prior to the death of Kadappa, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Originally, the suit property was owned and possessed by Hanmanthrao Desai, who was the landlord of the suit properties. Kadappa was paying remuneration in lieu of lavani in respect of the suit schedule property. Kadappa was in possession of the suit property, and after his demise, plaintiffs, being the Class-I heirs, continued in possession of the suit schedule property. During cross-examination, it was deposed that, Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal filed case against Hanamanthrao Desai pertaining to Sy.No.217 and Kadappa forced him to give evidence. He denied that P.W.2 does not know the facts of the case. It is denied that, defendant No.3 is the adopted son of Kadappa. 15. In rebuttal, defendant No.3 examined one witness as D.W.1. D.W.1 is the father of defendant No.3. He has deposed that, Smt.Gangawwa i.e., plaintiff No.1 is not the wife of Kadappa Jagadal, but his real wife is Laxmibai. Kadappa and Laxmibai have a daughter by the name of Yamanawwa. The said Yamanawwa was given in marriage to one Sadashiv Latur, - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 and the plaintiffs have shown the name of father of Kadappa as “Mallappa”, but actually, Kadappa’s father’s name is “Allappa”. Defendant No.2 granted the suit property to defendant No.3’s adopted father in 2009. Based on the registered adoption deed, the name of defendant No.3 was entered in the record of rights. Defendant No.3 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, and he is growing sugarcane and turmeric crops. The plaintiffs are strangers to the family of defendant No.3. The plaintiffs, taking advantage of the surname as “Jagadal”, filed a false suit to grab the property of defendant No.3. The plaintiffs are never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point in time. 16. To prove that, defendant No.3 was adopted by Kadappa, defendant No.3 has produced a certified copy of the adoption deed marked as Ex.D1. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.360/2014 filed by defendant No.3 against one Rajashekar Mahadevappa Bidari for permanent injunction regarding the suit schedule property. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.360/2014, which discloses that defendants in the said suit have entered into a compromise and the trial Court has drawn a compromise - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 decree as per Ex.D4. Ex D5 is the death certificate. Exs.D6 to D8 are cane weighment slips. The receipts are in the name of D.W.1. Ex.D9 is the mutation extract, which discloses that name of Kadappa was entered in the revenue records regarding suit schedule property. Ex.D10 is M.R.No.95/2011-12, in the name of Kadappa Jagadal. Ex.D11 is the mutation extract, which discloses that the suit property was mutated in the name of defendant No.3 on 29.01.2013. 17. Defendant No.3 also examined one witness as D.W.2, who deposed that defendant No.3 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the Land Tribunal granted the said land in favour of Kadappa Jagadal. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the evidence of D.W.2. 18. From a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 and 2, the entire case of the plaintiffs is that, the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal by the Land Tribunal and plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Kadappa and plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Kadappa. To establish that, plaintiffs are in possession of the suit - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 schedule property, except producing Exs.P1 to P6, i.e., RTC extracts, which discloses that Kadappa Jagadal was in possession of the suit schedule property, they have not produced any documents. It is the defence of the defendants that, the suit property was granted in favour of Kadappa Allappa Jagadal, and he adopted defendant No.3, and the adoption deed was registered and marked as Ex.D1. The plaintiffs had not produced any records to establish their possession over the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiffs have not pleaded, when they came in possession of the suit schedule property and adverse to the true owner. 19. The concept of adverse possession involves 3 elements, namely 1) Property, the subject of adverse possession, 2) The possession of property by a person having no right to have its possession (animus possidendi) and 3) The possession be adverse to the true owner. In the claim of adverse possession, the title is not disputed: The plea of adverse possession raises mixed questions of law and fact. Where a person wants to base his title on it, he should specifically set up the plea. Unless the plea is raised, it cannot be entertained. A plea must be raised, and it must be shown - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 when the possession became adverse, so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. A person acquires a title by way of adverse possession, when he is in continuous and uninterrupted, hostile possession over a period of 12 or more years. In order to calculate 12 years of period, there should be a starting point. Therefore, the law mandates that a person who seeks a declaration that, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, should specifically plead the date from which his possession becomes adverse to that of the true owner. It is from that date, if a person shows continuous uninterrupted possession for a period of 12 years, then the right of the true owners to the property stands extinguished, and the defendant would acquire the title by way of adverse possession. Insofar as proof of adverse possession is concerned, it is a well settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that, his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate, in continuity, in publicity, and to show the extent of adverse possession one should show: (a) On what date did he come into possession? - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 (b) What was the nature of his possession? (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party? (d) How long has his possession has continued? (e) His possession was open and undisturbed. 20. It’s only on the proof of all these ingredients, the case of adverse possession is said to have been established. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour, since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owners, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the ingredients/points necessary to establish his adverse possession. 21. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiffs have not pleaded, on what date they came into possession, the nature of their possession, the factum of possession was known to the other party, and how long their possession was continued and their possession was open and undisturbed. 22. From a perusal of the plaint and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, all these requirements have not been pleaded to and are - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 not proved by the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs have not admitted the title of defendant No.3 over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs cannot claim adverse possession without accepting the title of defendant No.3. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANNAKILI VS. VEDANAYAGAM AND OTHERS reported in (2007) AIR SCW 6892 held in para 22, which reads as under: "22. Claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. 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 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 do not ripen into a title." - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HEMAJI WAGHAJI JAT VS. BHIKHA BAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN AND OTHERS reported in (2008) SCW 6996 held in para 18, which reads as under: "18. In Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 at para 11, this Court observed as under: "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". The Court further observed that 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 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 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." 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.N. ASWATHAMA AND ANOTHER VS. V.P.PRAKASH reported in AIR (2009) SCW 5439, held in para 17, which reads as under: "17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence." - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VS. MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2012 SC 559, held in paras 42 , 43, and 48, which reads as under: "42. We inherited this law of adverse possession from the British. The parliament may consider abolishing the law of adverse possession or atleast amending and making substantial changes in law in the larger public interest. The Government instrumentalities- including the police in the instant case have attempted to possess land adversely. This, in our opinion, a testament to the absurdity of the law and a black mark upon the justice system's legitimacy. The Government should protect the property of a citizen- not steal it. And yet, as the law currently stands, they may do just that. If this law is to be retained, according to the wisdom of the Parliament, then at least the law must require those who adversely possess land to compensate title owners according to the prevalent market rate of the land or property in question. This alternative would provide some semblance of justice to those who have done nothing other than sitting on their rights for the statutory period, while allowing the adverse possessor to remain on property. While it may be indefensible to require all adverse possessors- some of whom may be poor to pay market rates for the land they possess, perhaps some lesser amount would be realistic in most of the cases. The Parliament may either fix a set range - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 of rates or to leave it to the judiciary with the option of choosing from within a set range of rates so as to tailor the compensation to the equities of a given case." "43. The Parliament must seriously consider atleast to abolish "bad faith" adverse possession, i.e., adverse possession achieved through intentional trespassing. Actually believing it to be their own could receive title through adverse possession sends a wrong signal to the society at large. Such a change would ensure that only those who had established attachments to the land through honest means would be entitled to legal relief." "48. The doctrine of adverse possession has troubled a great many legal minds. We are clearly of the opinion that time has come for change." 27. The plaintiffs contention is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are claiming title by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs failed to establish their adverse possession. The trial Court has rightly recorded its finding that, the plaintiffs are not in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as of the date of the suit, and they have failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendants, and rightly dismissed the suit. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.1 in the negative holding that, the plaintiffs have failed - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 to establish that, they have acquired title and become absolute owners by way of adverse possession. Pont No.2. 28. The trial Court, considered entire evidence of the parties and placed the reliance on the documents produced by the parties and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ANJANAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. SOMALINGAPPA reported in (2006) 7 SCC 570 has recorded its finding that, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have acquired title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and recorded that defendant No.3 is the adopted son of Kadappa Allappa Jagadal and Kadappa Allappa Jagadal was in possession of the suit schedule property and also held that, Kadappa Mallappa Jagadal was not in possession of the suit schedule property from 1996-1997 onwards. P.W.1 had clearly admitted that, Kadappa Allappa Jagadal was cultivating the suit property, and he had filed form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Kadappa Allappa Jagadal to the extent of 5 acres and remaining 10 acres, 17 guntas were retained by the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:117-DB RFA No. 100338 of 2018 Government. The trial court has considered the entire material on record and has rightly dismissed the suit. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.2 in the negative. Point No.3. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER The Regular Fist Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.66/2015 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby confirmed. No order as to the cost. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE MBS CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4