Supreme Court reinstates property ownership to plaintiffs, dismissing adverse possession claim.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The plaintiffs successfully established their title to the property through various documents, while the defendant's claim of title was unsupported by evidence. The defendant's assertion of adverse possession was deemed unproven due to inconsistencies and lack of continuous possession evidence. Consequently, the plaintiffs were declared rightful owners of the property and granted possession, with the defendant directed to deliver possession and pay costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether plaintiffs have established their title to the schedule property and entitlement to possession.
2. Whether the defendant has proved his title to the schedule property.
3. Whether the defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and therefore the suit is barred by limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Re: Question (i) - Establishment of Plaintiffs' Title and Entitlement to Possession:
The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was initially purchased by Hanumakka in 1940, who sold it to Bellary Muniswamy Pillai, and subsequently, it was sold to their father, Narayanaswamappa, in 1950. They provided several documents to support their claim, including a payment challan from 1940, sale deeds from 1940 and 1950, and a mortgage decree from 1965. These documents established the plaintiffs' title to the property and indicated that their father had exercised ownership rights by mortgaging the property. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had established their title and identity of the suit property, but the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' case based on a discrepancy in the katha number, which the plaintiffs explained as an error in the mortgage suit documents. The Supreme Court noted that possession follows title, and since the plaintiffs had established their title, they were entitled to possession unless the defendant proved adverse possession.

Re: Question (ii) - Defendant's Claim of Title:
The defendant claimed that he purchased the suit property from Gowramma in 1985, who inherited it from her husband, Channabasavanna. However, the defendant failed to produce any documents proving Gowramma's or her husband's title to the property. The sale deed from 1985 referred to previous title deeds and a court order, but these were not produced. The plaintiffs provided documents showing that Gowramma inherited a different property (site no.17) and not the suit property (site no.8). The Supreme Court found that the sale deed from 1985 was a fabricated document and did not convey any title to the defendant.

Re: Question (iii) - Adverse Possession and Limitation:
The defendant claimed to have been in possession of the suit property as a tenant since 1962 and later as an owner after purchasing it in 1985. The Supreme Court noted that the defendant's inconsistent claims of permissive possession as a tenant and adverse possession could not coexist. The defendant's claim of adverse possession was further weakened by the lack of evidence of continuous possession for 12 years prior to the suit. The only evidence of possession was a judgment from 1979, which granted an injunction against the Bangalore City Corporation but did not establish the defendant's title or adverse possession. The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession for the required period, and the plaintiffs' title remained unchallenged.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree, which declared the plaintiffs' title to the suit property and directed the defendant to deliver possession to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were also awarded costs.

---