- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1177 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a). 1(b). N. RAMASWAMY SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. ASHIKA D/O LATE N. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. KUM. BEENA R. D/O LATE N. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT:DODDA BANASWADI POST OFFICE BUILDING, ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET, BENGALURU - 560 021. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.N. ASHWATHNARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. AMARAVATHI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2009 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1356 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 passed in Original Suit No.1356/2007 on the file of the XL Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'). 2. Subject matter of the suit is land measuring 6 guntas in Survey No.13 situated at Banaswadi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk bounded on East by: Kana of Jayarama Reddy; West by: Papaiah's Ashrama Sy.No.2/1; North by: Kana of Jayarama Reddy and South by: Main Road (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'). 3. The plaintiff filed the above suit, seeking declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having perfected his title by adverse possession and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 consequent relief restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property contending interalia that (a) suit schedule property formed part of the Government land measuring 9 acres 21 guntas bearing Sy.No.13 of Banaswadi Village. That plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. That his father Thogur Nagappa was in possession of the suit schedule property for over fifty years. He had constructed a residential house in a portion of suit schedule property and remaining land was kept vacant. He was in continuous physical and peaceful possession of the same till his demise on 12.12.1996. (b) That in the year 1967, the father of the plaintiff Thogur Nagappa had filed a suit in O.S.No.681/1967 against one Thogur Nanjappa and others for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed. Thus, clearly establishing the fact that the suit schedule property was in possession of the father of the plaintiff for over forty years. (c) That after the demise of his father, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the suit schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 property without any interruption to the knowledge of the Government. (d) That the plaintiff and his father have paid property taxes to the Government and same was accepted even during the year 1965-66. In recognition of the possession of the father of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk had even mutated his name in the revenue records. That suit schedule property has seized to be an agricultural land as there exists residential building and shops. Grama Panchayath of Banaswadi has registered the name of the plaintiff in its revenue records assigning the house list No.306/1. Plaintiff has been exercising possessory rights for more than 70 years. He is exercising his rights as evidenced by RTC extracts, demand register extract and electricity bills produced in this regard. (e) That recently, State Government initiated proceedings against the persons who have encroached the Government lands and has constituted a Committee in this regard and a paper publication was issued intending to initiate criminal cases against persons in unauthorized occupations. Plaintiff apprehending the State Government may initiate action against him was constrained to file the above suit for declaration and permanent injunction. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 5. Defendants though served have remained absent and placed ex-parte. 6. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited 9 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. 7. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, framed following points for its consideration: "1) Whether the plaintiff has proved that he has exercised his right of ownership for over a statutory period against the defendants and perfected his title by adverse possession as alleged? 2) Whether plaintiff further proves that defendants have illegally interfered with his lawful possession over the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed? 4) What order?" 8. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court, dismissed the suit filed by impugned judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 9. Sri. S.N. Ashwathnarayana, learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri. S.A. Sudhindra, appearing for the plaintiff taking this Court through the materials placed on record submits that there is a clear pleading in the plaint with regard to the father of the plaintiff being in possession and after his death, the plaintiff continuing to be in uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property. He further submits that the fact that the father of the plaintiff who was paying the property taxes later discontinued, would clearly indicate that suit schedule property was in his possession adverse to the interest of the Government. That despite non payment of property tax failure on the part of the Government to initiate action for their eviction is another indication of they sitting over the property adverse to the interest of the Government, which is sufficient enough to grant the relief of declaration as sought for in favour of the plaintiff. 10. That undisputed entries in the revenue records clearly indicate the continuous possession of the plaintiff, which is the evidence of animus possidendi. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court erred in not appreciating pleading - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 and the material evidence available on record while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 11. Per contra, Smt.H.R.Amaravathi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no whisper in the plaint with regard to ingredients justifying the claim for adverse possession and mere continuous possession would not in any manner whatsoever amounts to adverse possession and therefore, the trial Court having appreciated the same while answering the points 1 to 3 had come to right conclusion in declining to accept the case of the plaintiff. She further submits that, mere stray entries in the revenue records and even filing of the suit in O.S No.681/1967 and obtaining decree by the father of the plaintiff to which the respondent-State is not a party, cannot be a ground to declare the relief of title in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the present appeal. 12. Heard and perused the materials on record. 13. Points that arise for consideration in the present appeal is: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 ”1.Whether the plaintiff has proved that he has perfected his title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession? 2.Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?" 14. Admittedly suit schedule property forms part of larger extent of land in Sy.No.13 of Banaswadi Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, belonging to respondent-State Government. Perusal of the entire plaint indicate that except repeatedly stating about the so called continuous possession of the father of the plaintiff till his demise and thereafter the plaintiff, there is no statement as to the date, time and period from which the said possession became adverse to the true owner namely respondent-State Government. 15. It is settled law that "mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant the right of adverse possession on its own and that the person claiming adverse possession must show clear and cogent evidence to substantiate such claim." The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar reported in (1994) 6 SCC 591 has held at paragraph 5 as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 “5. … A possession of a co-owner or of a licensee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession.” Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Gaya Parshad Dikshit v. Nirmal Chander reported in (1984) 2 SCC 286 has held at paragraph 1 as under: “1. … It is not merely unauthorised possession on termination of his licence that enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act on the part of the licensee to show that he is claiming adverse title. It is possible that the licensor may not file an action for the purpose of recovering possession of the premises from the licensee after terminating his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licensee to claim title by adverse possession. There must be some overt act on the part of the licensee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough.” The pleading must be clear, specific and categoric manifesting the intention and conduct to occupy the land belonging to the true owner adverse to his interest and to his knowledge. In the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Union of India reported in (2004) 10 SCC 779 the Apex Court at paragraph 11 as held as under: “11. … 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 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 Apex Court in the case of Annakili Vs A. Vedanayagam reported in (2007) 14 SCC 308 held at paragraph No.24: “24. 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.” The Apex Court in the case of Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao reported in (2010) 14 SCC 316 held at paragraph 15: “15. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and that possession was open and undisturbed.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 16. Plaintiff in the instant case to prove his case of adverse possession has produced documents.Ex.P1-RTC for the period 2006 and 2007 of Sy.No.13 of Banaswadi village, nothing is emanating from the said document to indicate the claim of the plaintiff or his father or he being in adverse possession of the suit schedule property. 17. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.681/1967, the said Judgment is apparently passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff against Thogur Nanjappa, Thogur Ramaiah and Ramaiah and the state is not a party in the said suit. The said document cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff to indicate his hostile possession of the suit property adverse to the interest of the State Government. 18. Ex.P3 is the RTC/Pahani of Sy.No.13 for the period of 1967-68 to 1970-71, Column No.9 of the said property indicate the land belonging to the Government and no entries are found at Column No.10 and 11. 19. Similarly Ex.P4 to P6 are the pahani extracts. There appears to be certain entry at Column No.12 indicating the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 name of the father of the plaintiff using it as a haystack backyard. It is not clear as to the basis on which the said entries have been made. 20. Ex.P7 is the cash receipt and Ex.P8 is another Tax paid receipt. Ex.P9 is the Copy of Representation dated 28.04.1986 given by father of the plaintiff to Tahsildar seeking registration of khatha in his name. If Ex.P9 and its contents are accepted to be true and genuine, it only indicate that father of the plaintiff himself is requesting the respondent-Tahsildar to make out a khatha in his name as he has been in possession of the suit property for over 50 years. This unequivocally indicate acceptance and admission of ownership of the respondent- State by the father of the plaintiff over the suit property. There is nothing in the said document to indicate that he has claimed he being in possession of the suit property having illegally entered upon and continuing to be in possession openly and adverse to the interest of respondent-State Government. The said letter would only indicate that he is seeking regularization of his unauthorised occupation. Same cannot be used to term and prove he being in possession adverse to the true owner. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 21. The Apex Court in the case of T.Anjanappa Vs Somalingappa reported in (2006) 7 SCC 570 at paragraphs 12 to 15 has held as under: 12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them. The principle of law is firmly established that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most crucial factor. Adverse possession is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right. A person is said to hold the property adversely to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of his property. 13. Possession to be adverse must be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other's rights but denies them: “24. It is a matter of fundamental principle of law that where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. It is on the basis of this principle that it has been laid down that since the possession of one co-owner can be referred to his status as co-owner, it cannot be considered adverse to other co-owners.” (See Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [(1995) 4 SCC 496] , SCC p. 504, para 24.) 14. Adverse possession is that form of possession or occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of the rightful owner and tends to extinguish that person's title. Possession is not held to be adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title. The person setting up adverse possession may have been holding under the rightful owner's title e.g. trustees, guardians, bailiffs or agents. Such persons cannot set up adverse possession: “14. … Adverse possession means a [hostile possession] which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 65 [of the Limitation Act,] burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases his title on adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence i.e. possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. … 15. Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all. (See Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant [(1995) 2 SCC 543, p. 554 : AIR 1995 SC 895, p. 902] , SCC p. 554, paras 14-15.) 22. As rightly taken note of by the trial Court, even if there are certain entries made in the revenue records, that by itself do not become the basis/ground to seek relief of declaration of title based on adverse possession. The Apex Court in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs. Fakhrul Hassan and Others reported in (1973) 3 SCC 642 at paragraphs 14 and 15 has held as under: 14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. 23. Adverting to claim made for declaration of title by adverse possession based on tax paid receipts the Apex Court in the case of Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao Vs. Galla Janikamma reported in (2008) 15 SCC 150 at paragraph 19 has held as under: 19. The defendant claimed that he had perfected his title by adverse possession by being in open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit property from 1957. He also produced some tax receipts showing that he has paid the taxes in regard to the suit land. Some tax receipts also showed that he paid the tax on behalf of someone else. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, both the courts have entered a concurrent finding that the defendant did not establish adverse possession, and that mere possession for some years was not sufficient to claim adverse possession, unless such possession was hostile possession, denying the title of the true owner. The courts have pointed out that if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hostile to the plaintiff's title will not be sufficient and he had to show that his possession was also hostile to the title and possession of the true owner. After detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court and the High Court also held that the appellant was only managing the properties on behalf of the plaintiff and his occupation was not hostile possession. 24. Thus, even the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff as per Exs.P1 to P9 are of no avail. The plaintiff has failed to prove he having perfected title over the suit property - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5522 RFA No.1177 of 2009 for adverse possession and the trial Court has committed no error. Points are answered accordingly. 25. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, the appeal fails, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and accordingly the Regular First Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1