Shri K V Kannan v. Shri R S Srinivasan

Order of the Tahsildar

1 Acre 39 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) (Plaintiff) East by: By private properties (Sy. No. 17, 18 and Ors)

West by: The Bangalore – Bannerghatta Road

North by: Sy. No. 19/2 (Ashoka Industries) (Defendant) South by: Govt. Rain Water Drain Channel

Ex. P. 16

25.10.1961 Sale Deed From Smt. Muniyamma to Smt. Sarojamma.

1 Acre 39 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: By private properties (Sy. No. 17, 18 and Ors) West by: The Bangalore – Bannerghatta Road North by: Sy. No. 19/2 (Ashoka Industries)

(Defendant) South by: Govt. Rain Water channel

29.05.1964 Sale Deed From Smt. Sarojamma to Plaintiff (Late K. V. Kannan)

1 Acre 39 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: By private properties (Sy. No. 17, 18 and Ors) West by: The Bangalore – Bannerghatta Road North by: Sy. No. 19/2 (Ashoka Industries) (Defendant) South by: Govt. Rain Water channel

Ex. P. 2

FLOW OF TITLE(RESPONDENTS) Date Transfer Boundary Exhibit

16.06.1911 Sale Deed Venkata S/o Kunta Chinna To Yella Dasappa Sy.No.19/2 East by : Hanumakka's Farm & Alalaganas' Farm West by: Bannerghatta Road North by: Bala's Farm South by: Chikkamutha's Farm

Ex.D.384 and Ex.D.384(a)

12.11.2010

10.04.1930

3 Acres 30 Guntas (Sy. No. 19) Akarband Hissa Fisal Pathrika Ex. D. 23

28.04.1930

The abovementioned property was divided into two portions as 1 acre 38 guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) and 1 Acre 21 Guntas (Sy. No. Ex. D. 56

19/2). Above said land phoded in two parts. Northern portion was given sy.No.19/1 measuring

1.38 plus one gunta phoot kharab. Map shows following boundaries.

East by: By private properties (Sy. No. 17, 18 and Ors)

West by: The Bangalore – Bannerghatta Road

North by: Sy. No. 19/2 (Ashoka Industries) (Defendant)

South by: Govt. Rain Water Drain Road Southern portion was given sub-division No. as 19/2

28.04.1930

(a) 1 acre 38 guntas Hissa Survey (Munivenkata Bin Yella)

(b) 1 Acre 21 Guntas Hissa Survey (Tana Bin Anja)

Ex. D. 22

28.04.1930

Survey Sketch Ex. D. 21

12.11.1930

Sale deed From Munivenkata to P. Munishamy Rao 1 acre 38 guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Lands of Hanumakka and Allelliga. West by: Bannerghatta Road. North by: Land of Hulimavu Bala. South by: Land of Chikka Mutha.

11.03.1931

Sale deed From P. Munishamy Rao to P. Rama Rao

1 acre 38 guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) Boundaries mentioned above

30.07.1934

Sale deed From P. Rama Rao to B. Nanjabyamma

1 acre 38 guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Lands of Hanumakka and Allelliga. West by: Bannerghatta Road. North by: Land of Hulimavu Bala. South by: Land of Chikka Mutha.

21.08.1945

Sale deed From B. Nanjabyamma to Muniyellappa 1 Acre 38 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Land belongs to Munellappa West by: Road North by: Land of Kala, S/o Bala South by: Land of Chikka Marappa's son Kaverapp

18.07.1963

Sale deed From Muniyellappa to Lakshmaiah

1 Acre 38 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Land belongs to Munellappa West by: Local fund Road (Bannerghatta Road) North by: Land bearing Sy. No.

¶10South by: Land of Sarojamma and Kaverappa.

02.07.1970

Sale deed From Lakshmaiah to B. N. Sampath Kumar

1 Acre 38 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Land belongs to Munellappa West by: Local fund Road (Bannerghatta Road) North by: Land bearing Sy. No.

¶10South by: Land of Sarojamma and Kaverappa.

25.03.1972

Sale deed From B. N. Sampath Kumar to Rukminiyamma

1 Acre 38 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Land belongs to Munellappa West by: Local fund Road (Bannerghatta Road) North by: Land bearing Sy. No.

¶10South by: Land of Sarojamma and Kaverappa.

27.08.1983

Conversion Order (to non agricultural land) in favour of Rukmiyamma Same as above.

04.07.1986

Sale deed From Rukminiyamma to M/s. Ashoka Industries 1 Acre 38 Guntas (Sy. No. 19/1) East by: Land belongs to Munellappa West by: Local fund Road (Bannerghatta Road) North by: Land bearing Sy. No.

10.

South by: Land of Sarojamma and Kaverappa.

¶23Both the parties have got converted their respective lands for non-agricultural use (according to appellant he got converted 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Survey No.19/1 for non-agricultural use). Both have made a lot of developments in the respective portion of survey No.19.

¶24Both side parties more or less have not seriously disputed above said facts.

¶25The respondent produced voluminous documents i.e., revenue records as well as documents pertaining to obtaining of electricity connection and payment of electricity bills, permission to construct buildings etc. As rightly observed by learned trial Judge most of the documents are irrelevant to decide facts in issue except a few. The revenue records produced by the respondent indicate that from the year 1930 onwards southern portion of survey No.19 is re-numbered as and

northern portion was re-numbered as 19/1.

¶26The respondent produced copies of title deeds from 1911-1945 at Exs.D384, 385, 386, 387, 388 and 389. All these documents show that after sub-division of survey No.19, the extent of northern portion of survey No.19 has been shown as 1 acre 38 guntas excluding 1 gunta of kharab land. These documents came into existence about 60 to 70 years prior to suit and at an undisputed point of time. There is no contrary evidence to disbelieve the contents of said documents.

¶27It is not in dispute that the appellant had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the land for non-agricultural use as per Exs.D3 to D9. Ex.D3 dated 13.05.1987 shows that the appellant requested Deputy Commissioner to convert the land bearing survey No.19/1 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas for non-agricultural use. The northern and southern boundaries of the property was mentioned as "North-the land of Muniyallappa, at present Ashoka Industries" and "South- water channel". The Office of the Deputy Commissioner by its letter dated

11.08.1987 asked the appellant to pay conversion charges of

Rs.1,97,906/-. The appellant wrote a letter dated

20.06.1987 as per Ex.D5, requesting the Deputy Commissioner to convert an extent of 1.20 guntas of land out of 1.39 guntas of land. The office of Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D6 intimated the appellant that they cannot convert portion of land for non-agricultural purpose. Thereafter, the appellant wrote a letter dated

13.05.1987 as per Ex.D5, stating that the extent of land available in his possession was only 1 acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre 38 guntas and he was ready to pay conversion charges to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land and prayed for conversion of the same. According to his own statement he was in possession of the land to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas.

¶28The learned Senior Counsel for appellant contends in the oral arguments as well as in the written submissions that the appellant was unable to pay such a heavy amount of conversion charges, therefore for the sake of avoiding the payment of the same, he stated that he was in possession of 1.20 guntas and it will not affect his right in

respect of remaining portion of the land. The said submission is legally not tenable. It was specific declaration that he was in possession of 1acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre 39 guntas. Such a statement made voluntarily cannot be ignored. It is not the case of the appellant that at that time he got measured the property to bifurcate converted and non-converted land for the purpose of development. It appears that the said contention of the appellant is just to overcome Ex.D8 and hence not tenable. This fact also indicates that during the year 1987 also he knew that the land that was in his possession was only to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and not 1 acre 38 guntas as contended in the plaint.

¶29The boundary mentioned in the application filed for conversion of land supports the contention of respondent. Admittedly, the appellant had executed registered lease agreements; some of them are produced at Exs.D11 to D13 dated

05.05.2005,

25.10.2005 and

15.11.2007. Even in the document executed during the year 2007, it is stated that "the lessors are the absolute owners of

immovable property to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas situated in Bannerghatta road in Survey No.19/1 of Kalena Agrahara village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru, having purchased the same from Smt.Sarojamma under the registered sale deed dated 29.05.1964."

¶30The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that only to an extent of 1.20 guntas of property was given on lease, therefore, there was no need for mentioning about the remaining extent of 18 guntas of land in the lease deed. The said submission is not tenable. It is clearly mentioned that an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas was purchased from Sarojamma vide sale deed dated

29.05.1964. There was no hurdle to state that "out of 1 acre 38 guntas purchased, 1.20 guntas was leased out." Therefore, the said contention of appellant is coined only for the purpose of overcoming the contents of the Exs.D11 to

¶13The appellant very well knew that he had purchased the property measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in survey No.19/2.

¶31The respondent produced the survey map. It shows the southern boundary of the said property as

"stream" (water channel). In all the documents existed prior to the filing of the suit, including the plaint 'A' schedule, the southern boundary of survey No.19/1 is shown as "water channel/stream". If the property of the appellant is situated at Northern side, as contended by the appellant, then there is no chance that southern boundary of said land as "water channel". The southern boundary of said land must be the land belonging to respondent.

¶32During the course of cross-examination, PW-2 admitted all the defence of the defendant regarding extent of land granted to both the parties, extent of the land held by respondent, that the land in possession of appellant is at southern side of survey No.19 and that construction of compound wall to bifurcate both the lands. The said evidence is discussed by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment in detail and there is no need of repetition. The contention of the appellant that PW-1 was well versed with the facts of the case. He was unable to appear before the court for further cross-examination due to old age and age related ailments.

Under those

circumstances, the original appellant was forced to examine PW-2, who was not well acquainted with the facts of the case. Therefore, the admission given by PW-2 cannot be considered.

¶33The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is not tenable in law. PW-2 is none other than the son of the deceased appellant. In his affidavit evidence, he stated that he was well conversant with the facts of the case and he reproduced the plaint averments in his affidavit. To prove his contention, the appellant wants to rely on the said evidence. But when it comes to admission given by him, he contents that it cannot be relied since he was innocent. The said approbation and reprobation is not permissible. When he was examined as a witness, his evidence shall be considered for appreciating the contentions of both the sides.

¶34Evidence of PW-2 and documents produced by both the parties support the contentions of respondent. It unequivocally proves that appellant is in possession of southern portion of survey No.19. As per the revenue record, it is re-numbered as 19/2 and its extent is 1 acre 20 guntas.

Boundary of the properties mentioned in the sale deeds produced by both the parties from the year 1911 till 2007 reveals that appellant has been in possession of survey No.19/2. During the year 1958, the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition though passed an order granting 1 acre 38 guntas in favour of Muniyamma in survey No.19/1, appellant or his predecessors in title never enforced their right to occupy the said land without any justifiable reasons and continued in possession of the land in which they were in possession prior to coming into force of Inams Abolition Act. That leads to an inference that appellant and predecessors in title were never in possession of survey No.19/1 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas. Nearly after lapse of about 48 years, from the date of the grant, appellant is claiming that respondent had encroached to an extent of 18 guntas in his land and seeking possession of the same incorrectly contending that he is in possession of northern portion of survey No.19. The said contention is not acceptable. The above said facts makes the case of respondent probable.

¶35It is the contention of appellant that once the land is vested in the State Government as per provisions of Inams Abolition Act, the revenue records, re-survey map and other records existed prior to the vesting of the land are inconsequential and said records cannot be considered.

¶36The Learned Senior Counsel for respondent submits that after coming into force of Inams Abolition Act, rights of the holders of such land ceases to exist and such land will be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The said Act only modifies the rights of holder of such lands. The revenue records in respect of such lands will not become inconsequential. The person, who was in possession/occupation of such land could apply for re-grant of such land. Considering such applications by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition may re-grant such land to the person, who was occupying such lands. Vesting with Government does not wipe out revenue records. If the contention of appellant is acceptable then even survey numbers and extent of land would also to be changed.

¶37The contentions of learned counsel for respondent is tenable. The Mysore (Personnel and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came into force from the date of its Notification i.e. 19th day of March, 1955. Section 3 of the said Act deals with consequences of vesting of Inam lands to the State. Under the said provision, no where it is stated that whatever land records exist prior to that date of coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, pertaining to the Inam lands ceases to operate or become invalidate.

¶38Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act reads as under:

¶5Permanent tenants to be registered as occupants on certain conditions.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), every permanent tenant of the inamdar shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of all lands of which he was a permanent tenant immediately before the date of vesting:

Provided that no person who has been admitted into possession of any land by an inamdar on or after the first day of July, 1948, shall, except where the Deputy Commissioner after an examination of all the circumstances

otherwise directs, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of such land.

(2) In addition to the annual land revenue payable in respect of the land, a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1), shall be liable to pay to the Government, as premium for acquisition of ownership of that land, an amount equal to twenty times such land revenue. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with the annual land revenue and in default of such payment, the amount due shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable: [Provided that where a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant of land under sub-section (1) is shown as a registered occupant in the settlement register and other records referred to in Section 117 of the Land Revenue Code or where the rent paid by a permanent tenant entitled to be registered as an occupant under sub-section (1) ²[is not more than the land revenue], no premium shall be payable under this sub-section]. (emphasis supplied)

¶39The above said provision reveals that whosoever occupied such land prior to coming into force of the Act, has to apply to the concerned officer/Deputy Commissioner for regrant of such land. The said officer after verification and enquiry has to pass order regranting lands to such person.

None of the provisions of Inams Abolition Act states that even revenue records existing prior to the appointed date become invalidate or ineffective. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that re-survey of lands, preparation of map etc., held during the year 1930 or documents coming to existence after the said survey and other documents existing prior to vesting of the land are inconsequential and cannot be enforced is legally not tenable.

¶40It is settled principle of law that boundaries prevail over the extent of the land. The boundaries of the property belonging to both the appellant and respondent reveals that the appellant is in possession of survey No.19/2. It appears predecessors in title of the appellant had filed application before the authority immediately after coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, as per Ex.D17, requesting to grant survey number as 19/1 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas. It appears same was inadvertently re-granted in the name of Muniyamma without ascertaining the factual particulars and accordingly, an endorsement was given on

16.07.1958.

¶41As per the materials available on record, Muniyamma was in possession of the land situated towards southern side of survey No.19 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas prior to coming into force of Inams Abolition Act. After coming into force of Inams Abolition Act she had right to apply only to that extent of land for re-grant as provided under Section 5 of the Inams Abolition Act. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition had no authority to grant different land to the applicant, which he or she was not in possession prior to appointed date. Therefore the said order was not acted upon by Muniyamma or her successor in title. Therefore, she cannot become the owner of the said land. It is not her case that subsequent to passing of the said order, she started occupying the property bearing survey No.19/1 situated at northern side. The document, which was referred above shows that even during the year 2007, the boundaries of the lease deed shows that the appellant is in possession of the southern portion of the land in survey number 19. In view of these reasons, the

appellant cannot be declared as the owner of 18 guntas of land, which is subject matter of the suit.

¶42The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per provisions of Inams Abolition Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide correctness of re-grant order. Therefore, the civil court could not have sat as Appellate Court over the orders passed by Special Deputy Commissioner (Inams Abolition) and come to an opinion that the land granted to the appellant was survey number 19/2. The said contention is not acceptable. The trial Court has not set aside the regrant order or decided right of the parties under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. The trial court considered as to whether appellant was in possession of 1 acre 38 guntas of land in survey No.19 as well as situation of the said land. It has also considered as to whether defendant had encroached any extent of the land belonging to appellant. The civil court has to decide such a disputed question. To grant the relief prayed in the suit, considering the said point is required. When the appellant approached the civil court it is necessary to consider said materials to

arrive at just conclusion. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant that civil court has no jurisdiction is not tenable.

¶43The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court had not given proper and sufficient opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine PW-2. Therefore, rights of the appellant is prejudiced. It is pertinent to note that trial Court in the impugned judgment observed that respondent filed lengthy evidence in the form of an affidavit running about 51 pages and produced irrelevant and unconnected documents. In the entire body of the judgment, the trial Court did not hold that due to non cross-examination of DW1, suit was dismissed. More or less the suit was dismissed on the basis of undisputed documents and evidence of PW-2. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the case of appellant due to non cross-examination of DW-1. The appellant had filed an application before the trial court to recall DW1 and said application was dismissed. It appears no further steps were taken by appellant to challenge the

said order. Therefore, on that ground, impugned judgment cannot be set aside.

¶44The trial Court framed additional issues and held that suit was barred by time. The trial Court observed that for last 100 years respondent is in possession of the property. Therefore, the appellant lost his right. The records reveal that during the year 1930 when properties were re-surveyed, the survey numbers were inter changed. After coming into force of Inams Abolition Act, the lands vested in the Government and in the year 1958 mistakenly the land was re-granted in survey number 19/1 to an extent of 1 acre 38 guntas in favour of predecessors in title of the plaintiff. Though prior to vesting of the land, she was in possession of only 1 acre 20 guntas of the land situated towards southern portion of survey No.19, from 1958 till filing of the suit, for a period of about 47-48 years, the appellant or his predecessor in title did not file any suit claiming possession of the alleged encroached portion. As per Section 65 of the Limitation Act, the suit should be filed within a period of 12 years from the date when the

possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In this case, respondent did not take the defense of adverse possession, that may not be necessary. The appellant or his predecessor in title for last about 100 years never claimed possession from the respondent or their predecessors in title. Undisputedly, defendant developed northern side of survey No.19 i.e. 19/1 with the knowledge of appellant. These facts show that he had acquiesced and was estopped from claiming the same. Due to long standing possession and enjoyment of disputed land, the appellant lost his right, if any, to claim possession. Therefore, the suit filed by the appellant is barred by limitation under Article 65 as well as Section 27 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial Judge considered the same and rightly held that suit was barred by time.

¶45The appellant filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce additional evidence. He produced some of RTCs and Mutation records along with said application. Respondent filed objections to the said

application. Arguments were heard on the said application during main arguments.

¶46Most of the facts of the case are not in dispute. These documents in no way helps the contentions of either of parties. While applying for regrant occupier of the land made mistakes in mentioning survey numbers (inter-changed) and regrant order was also passed in respect of very same lands. On that basis, revenue records were mutated. Hence, said revenue records intended to be produced are irrelevant and do not improve plaintiff's case.

¶47The suit was filed in the year 13.02.2007. The suit was disposed of on 17.07.2017 and matter was pending for about 10 years before the trial Court. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1/2021, no justifiable reasons are shown to show that with all due diligence, he could not secure the said document and produce before the Court. Therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, detailed discussion is not required.

¶48For the above said discussions, we are of the view that the appellant utterly failed to prove his contention before the trial Court and trial Court by properly appreciating pleadings and evidence on record and assigning valid reasons dismissed the suit. It does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶49For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S.No.393/2007 is confirmed. I.A.No.1/2021 filed by the appellant under Order LXI, Rule 27 of CPC is dismissed.

All the other pending I.As. stand disposed of.

Separate enquiry is ordered on application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The Registrar (Judicial) shall record evidence of the parties on the said application and submit the same to the Court.

Sd/- (SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) JUDGE

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AG List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1815 OF 2017 (DEC) BETWEEN: SHRI K.V. KANNAN S/O K.VEDANTA IYENGAR, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, R/A "VEDANTA" NO.601, 15TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR IST PHASE BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SHRI DASHARATHI K V. 1(a) MRS.JAMBU KANNAN AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS W/O LATE K.V. KANNAN 1(b) MR. DASHARATHI K.V, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE K.V.KANNAN R/AT "VEDANTA" NO.601, 15TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR IST PHASE BANGALORE. 1(c) MRS.SHEELA, W/O LATE SRIPATNI K.V, S/O LATE K.V. RAMAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1(d) MRS.SHRUTHI RANJANI D/O LATE SRIPATNI K.V. S/O LATE K.V.KANNA. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2024:KHC:53379-DB( RFA(No.(1815(of(2017( ( ( ( ( 1(e), MS.,SRINIDHI,, , D/O,LATE,SRIPATNI,, , S/O,LATE,K.V.KANNAN,, , AGED,ABOUT,29,YEARS., , 1(f), MR.,SUDHARSHAN,K.V., S/O,LATE,K.V.,SRIPATNI, S/O,LATE,K.V.KANNAN, AGED,ABOUT,28,YEARS, , 1(a),&,1(c),TO,1(f),R/AT, FLAT,NO.104,,SRI.SAILAM, APARTMENT,,NO.59,, TH4 ,MAIN,ROAD,,GAVIPURAM,, , EXTENSION,, BANGALORE-,560,019., ,,,…APPELLANTS, , (BY,SRI.B.K.,SAMPATH,KUMAR,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,SURAJ,SAMPATH,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( ( SHRI.,R.S,SRINIVASAN,, S/O,R.S,SEETHARMAIAH,SETTY,, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS,, PARTNER, M/S,ASHOKA,INDUSTRIES,, SY.,NO.18/3,,KALENA,AGRAHARA,, BEGUR,HOBLI,BANNERGHATTA,ROAD, BANGALORE-560,076.( ,,…RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.VIVEK,S,REDDY,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,K.N.,SUBBA,REDDY,,ADVOCATE), , , THIS,REGULAR,FIRST,APPEAL,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,96,OF, CPC.,, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 17.07.2017, PASSED, IN, OS.NO.393/2007, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, PRINCIPAL, SENIOR, CIVIL, JUDGE, BENGALURU,, RURAL, DISTRICT, BENGALURU,, DISMISSING, THE, SUIT, FOR, DECLARATION,, POSSESSION, AND, MANDATORY,INJUNCTION., , THIS,,APPEAL,,,HAVING,,,BEEN,HEARD,AND,RESERVED,FOR, JUDGMENT,ON,18.09.2024,AND,COMING,ON,FOR,PRONOUNCEMENT, OF,JUDGMENT,THIS,DAY,,UMESH(M(ADIGA(J.,,PRONOUNCED,THE, FOLLOWING:, CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.393/2007 . 2. Brief facts of the case of both the parties are that: The plaintiff purchased the suit property bearing Survey No.19/1 Kalena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru measuring 1 acre 38 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 29.05.1964 from its owner Smt. Sarojamma and thus became owner and in possession of the said property. The plaintiff got converted the said land for non-agricultural use by the order dated 30.09.1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Just prior to filing of the suit, both plaintiff and defendant came to know for the first time that there were certain discrepancies in the extent of the property and the same were required to be rectified. Joint survey was conducted and it revealed that defendant had encroached to an extent of 18 guntas of land upon plaintiff's land in survey No.19/1 totally measuring 1 acre 38 guntas. Plaintiff negotiated with the defendant and requested to hand over the possession of the said 18 guntas of land. The defendant did not agree for the same. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit seeking for the relief mentioned in the plaint. 3. The defendant in his written statement described in detail the flow of title of the land in survey No.19/1 and 19/2 to different persons. In addition to that he also contended as per Akarband, Hissa partrika, the land in survey No.19 was totally measuring of 3 acre 20 guntas plus phot kharab. It was phoded as per survey conducted on 10.04.1930. It was divided into two parts i.e. survey No.19/1 measuring 1 acre 38 gun