Question Of Adverse Possession Does Not Arise Once Appellant Claims That Property Was Granted Under Dharakast: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that the question of adverse possession does not arise if the Appellant claims that the property was granted under Dharakast.
The Court dismissed a Revision Appeal challenging the Order of the Trial Court, whereby the Plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit schedule property. The Court held that the question of adverse possession does not arise unless the ownership is admitted and in the case, no ownership was ever proved.
Justice H.P. Sandesh observed, “The contention of the appellant that he has acquired the title by adverse possession and the same is also discussed by the First Appellate Court. The question of adverse possession does not arise unless the ownership is admitted. In one breath, the appellant says that the property belongs to the Government and in another breath he says that he got the property by way of Dharakast. Once he claims that the property is granted under Dharakast, the question of claiming adverse possession over the property does not arise. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in dismissing the suit and confirming the order of the Trial Court”.
Advocate Vijaya Kumar Bhat A appeared for the Appellant.
The Plaintiff contended that he was the lawful owner of a suit property that was granted by the Defendants under Dharakast. The Plaintiff’s father had cultivated the land without due authorization and therefore, after his death, the Plaintiff continued cultivation of the land. The Plaintiff contended that he was in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 30 years and the Defendants were trying to interfere with his possession
A Regular Second Appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, whereby the Plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit schedule property.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff was claiming that he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and owned the same since it was granted under the Dharakast by the defendants. The Court observed that the Plaintiff had not produced any document except relying upon the mutation entries. The Court noted that if the suit schedule property was granted in favor of the Plaintiff under the Dharakast, the Plaintiff has to produce a document of grant which he had not.
The Court held that the question of adverse possession does not arise unless the ownership is admitted. The Court noted that the Appellant had not established that the property belonged to him and therefore, the Trial and Appellate Court had correctly decided the case.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Thimmappa v The Tahasildar (2023:KHC:35950)
