Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. The appellant herein was the defendant in the suit. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the land bearing Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 of Bilekahalli, measuring about 13 acres in all, known as Venkatappa Gardens belonged to one Venkataswamappa alias Venkataswamy. The premises bearing No.8, subsequently numbered as 324 and about 11 houses adjacent to he said lands were purchased by the said Venkataswamy. Rangamma and one Papaiah in the year 1896, which was subsequently sold to Rangamma, the sister of the said Venkataswamy in the year 1918. It is further contended that Venkataswamy, as the owner of the lands, sold some of the lands and the remaining lands were bequeathed to one R. Narayana Swamy, his nephew, as per will dated 8.12.1941 and by another will dated 10.12.1941. Venkataswamy had subsequently died. It is hence contended that R. Narayana Swamy became the absolute owner of the property. Rangamma, Narayana Swamy’s paternal aunt, by a registered gift deed, conveyed all the residential houses she was possessed of to Narayana Swamy. It is the case of the plaintiffs that those residential houses were numbered by the then Municipality as Nos.1 to 12, Thimmaiah Road, which was subsequently renumbered as Premises Nos.317 to 328. Of those properties, Narayana Swamy sold houses bearing Nos. 9 to 12, subsequently renumbered as 325 to 328, under a registered will executed in the year 1918, bequeathing property Nos.1 to 7, later bearing Nos.317 to 323 to his sons, R.N. Ramaiah, Narasimhamurthy and daughters, Jayalakshmi and Gajalakshmi and premises No.8, New No.324 to his grand-sons by R.N. Ramaiah and Narasimhamurthy. It transpires that R. Narayana Swamy had submitted a plan and a layout was formed in the abutting vacant land to premises No.324. Subsequently a revised plan was submitted to the then Collector, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore on 6.10.1946 and the Collector in proceedings No.Dis.F.5/1946 approved the said layout of sites. R. Narayana Swamy then executed a trust of a substantial portion of the lands as owner thereof to Shri Lakshminarayan Charities and handed over the property to the trustees, who were managing the trust. R. Narayana Swamy then executed a trust of a substantial portion of the lands as owner thereof to Shri Lakshminarayan Charities and handed over the property to the trustees, who were managing the trust. It is also stated that the Municipality had approached R. Narayana Swamy and had carried on correspondence with him and had sought for permission to cut a channel through his property and to consider him as the owner of the properties. Narayana Swamy, therefore, died possessing the said sites and other properties leaving behind him his widow, R.N. Ramaiah, Narasimha Murthy, Jayalakshmi and Gajalakshmi as on 12.1.1964. It is further claimed that under a family arrangement, a partition was effected in respect of the said town sites and a town site bearing No.324/60 and two other sites were allotted to R. Bhagirathi, daughter of R.N. Ramaiah, who in turn, had sold a portion to the present plaintiff under a sale deed dated 27.3.1981. It is on that basis that the plaintiffs had sought for registration of khata in respect of the suit property by an application dated 16.7.1982. The defendant had failed to communicate to fate of the application within the statutory period of 45 days, but it issued an endorsement, rejecting her request, thereafter, to register the khata and claiming that the property belonged to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. It is in this background that the plaintiffs claimed that a cause of action had arisen and had sought for a declaration of title and for consequential reliefs. 3. The defendant had entered appearance and had denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any reliefs, as prayed for. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues were framed:- “(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that one Miss. R. Bhagirathi D/o R.N. Ramaiah, had a valid title, ownership and possession to the Town site bearing No.324/16 and the other two sites? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they claim title and ownership to the town site bearing No.324/16 and two sites through registered sale deed dated 27.9.81? R. Bhagirathi D/o R.N. Ramaiah, had a valid title, ownership and possession to the Town site bearing No.324/16 and the other two sites? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they claim title and ownership to the town site bearing No.324/16 and two sites through registered sale deed dated 27.9.81? (3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the President of the Civil & Military Station, Bangalore and the then Collector in proceedings D.Dis.F.5/1946 approved the layout of sites as Town sites abutting vacant land to premises No.324 as referred to in Revenue Appeals 94 and 96 of 64-66 by the Sub-Divisional Officer in his order dated 28.6.1956? (4) Whether the defendant proves that Town sites bearing No.324/16 and the other two sites owned by the defendant? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek declaration in regard to the registration of khata in respect of the suit schedule property for the breach of conditions specified under the provisions of Sec.443(1) of the Corporation Act? (6) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant has registered the khata in respect of premises Nos.324 to 331 and other properties in the names of the owners? (7) Whether the plaintiffs prove that r. Narayanaswamy bequeathed the properties 1 to 7 new Nos.317 to 323 to his sons, R.N. Ramaiah, Narasimhamurthy and daughters Jayalakshmi and Gajalakshmi and premises No.8 new No.324 to the grand-son R.N. Ramaiah and Narasimhamurthy? (8) Whether the defendant proves that the khata made out in the name of Sri Ramaiah has been revoked by the defendant? (9) Whether the defendant proves that on receipt of application of the 2nd plaintiff any action taken thereof communicated in regard to the registration of katha? (10) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? (11) What order or decree? (12) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have acquired title to the schedule property by adverse possession?” Thought at Paragraph-14, the judgment does not indicate the findings on the issues, the issues are however answered in detail by the trial court in the body of the judgment? 5. Insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, the court below has held that the contention of the plaintiff was that the property belonged to one Bhagirathi, daughter of PW.1 Ramaiah and she had acquired the property under a family arrangement on 21.5.1981 as per Exhibit P.32. 5. Insofar as issue No.1 is concerned, the court below has held that the contention of the plaintiff was that the property belonged to one Bhagirathi, daughter of PW.1 Ramaiah and she had acquired the property under a family arrangement on 21.5.1981 as per Exhibit P.32. The Court below has taken into account the previous history, as narrated by PW.1, that his grandfather Venkataswamappa being the owner of land in Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 or Bilekahalli Village, had converted the lands into building sites and the said survey numbers are described in the Survey Settlement Records, maintained as in the year 1907 by the then Mysore Survey Department. Survey No.16 was shown as “Kharabu Manegalu” and Survey no.18 as “Kharabu Manegalu” and Survey No.19 as Kere and Survey No.25 as Bangle, though the names of the owners was not mentioned against those survey numbers. Relying on the entries in Exhibit P.1, the Survey Settlement Record, PW.1 had claimed that these properties belonged to his grand-father Venkataswamappa. And that he had bequeathed Survey No.18 under a will in favour of Narayanaswamy. The original will is said to have been filed in a civil suit in O.S.No.31/1974 and it was claimed that Narayana Swamy had bequeathed the, property under a will dated 24.11.1958 and his father had died on 12.1.1964 and there was a family arrangement. The suit property subject-matter of the suit was given to Bhagirathi and that his father had created a trust in respect of remaining properties in the name of Lakshmi Narayan Charities and that he was one of the trustees. The trust having applied for licence for construction of the building on site No.16 in Survey No.18, a licence was granted as per Exhibit P.4. Exhibit P.5 was the sanctioned plan and Exhibit P.6 was the endorsement issued by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records. Exhibit P.6 indicates that Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 belonged to private persons and that property No.8 in Survey No.18 belonged to him. Subsequently, it has been renumbered as No.324, Thimmaiah Road and that is how PW.1 had sought to address the title to the suit property, which has been subsequently given to his daughter Bhagirathi in the family arrangement. Exhibit P.6 indicates that Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 belonged to private persons and that property No.8 in Survey No.18 belonged to him. Subsequently, it has been renumbered as No.324, Thimmaiah Road and that is how PW.1 had sought to address the title to the suit property, which has been subsequently given to his daughter Bhagirathi in the family arrangement. As opposed to this, the defence of the Corporation in respect of the suit property was to the effect that as per the Property Register maintained by the then Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, there is an entry at Serial No.25, showing that land in Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25, excluding premises Nos.1 to 12 of Survey no.18, situate to the north of Miller Tank was purchased for Rs.960/-on 23.7.1894. Therefore, it is claimed that the property belonged to the Corporation. Hence, the question of transferring the khata in the name of the plaintiffs or anybody else did not arise and the khata made out in the name of PW.1 Ramaiah has been revoked by the Commissioner. An appeal having been preferred has been rejected holding that no portion of Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 belonged to late Venkataswamy and it is in this vein that it is claimed that the property belonged to the Corporation. However, no evidence was tendered. 6. The only document that was produced by the Corporation was Exhibit D.1, a note dated 21.8.1989 sent by the then Commissioner to the Superintendent Engineer (East), to submit his report with regard to the dispute involved and the Additional Chief Engineer, Bangalore City Corporation, had requested to send the original 29 files pending with regard to the court cases. Whereas those files were not returned and it was requested to send the same at an earlier date. Exhibit D.3 was a map of Bilekahalli issued by the Survey Settlement Department. Exhibit D.4 was the sketch in respect of land in Survey No.18. Exhibit D.6 was the Akarband statement. None of these documents indicated that the property belonged to the erstwhile Collector of Civil and Military Station and thereafter, those properties were transferred to the Corporation. 7. The defendants had examined one Krishnappa, Deputy Revenue Officer, who had stated that the property belonged to the Corporation. Exhibit D.6 was the Akarband statement. None of these documents indicated that the property belonged to the erstwhile Collector of Civil and Military Station and thereafter, those properties were transferred to the Corporation. 7. The defendants had examined one Krishnappa, Deputy Revenue Officer, who had stated that the property belonged to the Corporation. It was formerly Millers Tank Bed, which vested with the Government and transferred to the Civil and Military Station and subsequently vested with the Corporation in the year 1947. Yet another witness also did not categorically indicate the manner in which the properties had vested with the Corporation and there were no materials placed to indicate that it was the owner. Insofar as the will set up by the plaintiff, the court, in proceeding to examine whether in the absence of examination of the attesting witnesses to the will, whether the same could be relied upon, has prompted the court to examine other related documents, namely, an endorsement dated 16.12.1975, Exhibit P.6, issued by the Assistant Superintendent of land records, which was issued in response to a representation given by the plaintiff, seeking supply of the sketch in respect of Survey No.19 of Bilekahalli. The endorsement reads that the sketch cannot be issued as the “husbusth” work could not be finalised in respect of the said survey numbers and those lands were standing in the name of private persons. And the endorsement clearly indicates that Survey Nos.16, 18 and 25 belonged to private persons. Yet another document was the case papers in Revenue Appeal Case No.94-96/54-55, which was an appeal filed by the plaintiff and others including his father Narayanaswamy against the State Government. A certified copy of the order was at Exhibit P.18, which was passed on 25.8.1955, which indicated that the Special Amaldar for Prevention of Unauthorised Construction had directed the appellants therein to pay fines towards the conversion of land in Survey No.18 of Bilekahalli. It transpires that the unauthorised constructions were put up and for regularising the same, conversion fine was imposed at Rs.5,000/-per acre, against which order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. It transpires that the unauthorised constructions were put up and for regularising the same, conversion fine was imposed at Rs.5,000/-per acre, against which order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was observed by that the plot, where the construction was put up was kharab land, belonging to one Venkatamma and the appellants had originally applied before the then Collector, Civil and Military Station, for conversion and got conversion after complying with the formalities required and the land was never assessed to revenue tax and even for the purpose of survey and settlement, it was termed as Kharab Manegalu. When the land has already been permitted for converting into building sites, it was observed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the Special Amaldar did not look into those matters, since the decision had been taken in the year 1946 before the then Collector, Civil and Military Station and accordingly, the order of the Special Amaldar was set aside and the conversion in favour of the appellants was upheld. 8. Exhibit P.19 was a letter written to R. Narayana Swamy, the father of PW.1, in response to a petition dated 26.5.1947, seeking sanction to erect a permanent shed and a compound wall in Survey No.18. While according sanction by the then President of Civil and Military Station, it was indicated that no other structural additions or alterations should made and that the sanction was for one year from that date. Therefore, the trial court has concluded that if the land in Survey Nos.18, 16 and 25 did indeed belong to the Corporation or even to the then Civil and Military Station, such a sanction could not have been given as on 3.6.1947, permitting Narayanaswamy, to put up a shed with a compound wall in Survey No.18 of Bilekahalli and hence, the said order passed in appeal and the sanction order would clinch the issue that late Narayanaswamy was enjoying those properties as the absolute owner, having acquired the same through his paternal uncle Venkateswamappa. 9. Yet another document that has been relied upon by the court below in Exhibit P.22, a report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner by the Tahsildar on 11.8.1960 in respect of Survey Nos.16 and 18 of Bilekahalli. 9. Yet another document that has been relied upon by the court below in Exhibit P.22, a report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner by the Tahsildar on 11.8.1960 in respect of Survey Nos.16 and 18 of Bilekahalli. The report indicates that an exhaustive report was made on 28.5.1958 by the then Tahsildar and it was concluded that the entries made against those survey numbers during the record of rights survey, are based on the present enjoyment of the persons of the land. The opinion of the Survey Department was subsequently obtained. The Superintendent of Land Records in his letter dated 13.2.1960 had stated that, on verification of the village records, it was found that the points furnished by the Corporation Engineer did not tally with the opinion found in the survey records and has acknowledged the order passed in appeal in favour of Narayanaswamy and others and has opined that it would not be open to question their status again and that in respect of the land in Survey No.16, the names of six persons were shown as having constructed the properties thereon and hence, it was not clear that the Corporation had established its right over these lands. The Court below has thus found that the subject land was the subject-matter of an inquiry at the earliest point of time and the Corporation had failed to establish its claim over the properties. 10. It is also found by the court below that one Shri. Shivabalayogi Maharaja Swamiji had requested for registration of khata in respect of a portion of the property and an endorsement was issued to the effect that transfer of khata would involve the requirement of prior sanction for formation of a private layout and it would further require the requisite sanction under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and necessary no objection certificate from the Bangalore Development Authority. This, according to the court below, is yet another circumstance having regard to the endorsement, which is dated 23.11.1987 and when the defendant—Corporation was fully aware of the claim made by the plaintiff over the suit property, the Corporation had not rejected that application on the ground that the property belonged to the Corporation. This, according to the court below, is yet another circumstance having regard to the endorsement, which is dated 23.11.1987 and when the defendant—Corporation was fully aware of the claim made by the plaintiff over the suit property, the Corporation had not rejected that application on the ground that the property belonged to the Corporation. Apart from this, the Court has also referred to the proceedings initiated by one Byanna in a Civil Suit against the Corporation and Narayanaswamy, the father of the plaintiff and others, in respect of land in Survey No.18, who had claimed that he had purchased that site from Narayanaswamy. The defendant—Corporation had refused to grant licence to put up construction. Hence, the suit. That suit was dismissed by the trial court and a regular appeal having been filed, Narayanaswamy had died in the meanwhile and the present plaintiff—PW.1 and his mother were brought as his legal representatives. In those proceedings, the defendant—Corporation took the very same contention, which is taken up in the present suit and having heard the defendant—Corporation it was held that the defendant—Corporation did not prove its title to the suit property nor that it belonged to the Government at any point of time. Therefore, it was held that the suit of the plaintiff ought not to have been dismissed. The judgment in appeal was challenged in a second appeal before this court and that appeal was dismissed. 11. Similarly, yet another suit filed by one Syed Iqbal Hussain in O.S. No.31/1974 was also contested by the Corporation on identical grounds, in that, the suit properties were purchased from Narayanaswamy, the father of PW1 and therefore the non-examination of the attesting witnesses to the will set up by the plaintiff was not fatal to his case, since there were attendant documents in support of his claim to title, who is said to have purchased the same from Bhagirathi, who in turn, has obtained the property under a family settlement at Exhibit P.3, which was an unregistered document. But the court below has opined that it was only a record of an arrangement among the members of the family and having regard to the nature of the document, it was not compulsorily registrable and it has been acted upon and it was well within the knowledge of the defendant—Corporation. But the court below has opined that it was only a record of an arrangement among the members of the family and having regard to the nature of the document, it was not compulsorily registrable and it has been acted upon and it was well within the knowledge of the defendant—Corporation. The court has then referred to the other documents namely, Exhibit P.32 marked in O.S.No.2399/1980, which is a letter addressed by the Amaldar to the Collector, indicating that there is a reference to compensation payable to Venkataswamappa, for lands acquired for the purpose of improvement of the Millers tank and a cheque for Rs.735/-is enclosed payable to Venkataswamappa, being the compensation awarded and yet another document Exhibit P.33, marked in the very same suit, indicating that compensation of Rs.1,350/-was paid towards loss of crops and that therefore, these documents indicated that the then revenue authorities of Civil and Military Station had accepted the title of Venkataswamappa in respect of properties in question having acquired a portion of the land and that they had awarded compensation. And held that the plaintiff’s vendor Bhagirathi had a valid title to the suit property. Issue No.1 was thus answered in the affirmative. In view of the finding on issue No.1, insofar as issues 2 and 3 are concerned, the court below holding that the plaintiffs purchased the suit properties from Bhagirathi under a registered sale deed and when it was established that the plaintiff’s vendor had a valid title to sell the suit property, it was not open for the defendant—Corporation to question the title of the present plaintiffs and held that it was wholly unnecessary to go into the several facts that had been addressed, while considering issue No.1 and summarily disposed of other issues in the suit and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the court below has accepted Exhibit P.2, an alleged will of Venkataswamappa, when neither the original nor a certified copy of the same was produced and when neither the attestors nor the scribe of the will or atleast anyone, who knew about execution of the will had been examined. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the court below has accepted Exhibit P.2, an alleged will of Venkataswamappa, when neither the original nor a certified copy of the same was produced and when neither the attestors nor the scribe of the will or atleast anyone, who knew about execution of the will had been examined. It is pointed out that Venkataswamappa was not the khatedar nor had paid any taxes in respect of the suit property and though PW 1 had admitted that he had documents to show that land in survey No.18 was acquired by his grandfather and he having purchased the same from the Government and khata was registered in his name and he had formed sites with the approval of the Municipal Corporation, had not produced any documents, such as, the sale deed executed by the Government in his favour nor the Khata Certificate or tax paid receipts or the approval of the Municipal Corporation for formation of sites and roads. Therefore, neither the ownership nor bequest of Venkataswamappa could have been held to have been proved. Further the Will of Narayanaswamy dated 24.8.1958 also should have been rejected for the very same reason that the original was not produced. In spite of the same having been summoned and the Will of Narayanaswamy was a conditional bequest and it was not demonstrated that any of the conditions stated therein were satisfied by the plaintiff and it was also not stated as to how the property had devolved on Narayanaswamy, when he had also acquired few properties by virtue of the gift deed by Rangamma, the paternal aunt and therefore, the manner in which, the court below has proceeded to accept the Will is highly irregular and illegal. 13. Exhibit P.3, which is said to be a partition deed, was a compulsorily registrable document and was not admissible in evidence. Even if the same had been marked in evidence, the same could not have been acted upon and the court below having held that having regard to the nature of the document, it was not a compulsorily registrable document, is a finding that is clearly contrary to the law. In any event, Bhagirathi was a minor at the time of the execution of Exhibit P.3 and even after her attaining majority, her father Ramaiah claimed to continue to hold the property. In any event, Bhagirathi was a minor at the time of the execution of Exhibit P.3 and even after her attaining majority, her father Ramaiah claimed to continue to hold the property. Therefore, it was clear that Exhibit P.3 was not acted upon. The suit having been decreed on the basis of Exhibit P.32, the sale deed executed by Bhagirathi would, therefore, have to fall to the ground, since Bhagirathi herself had no right or title if she was claiming the property under Exhibit P.3, which was an unregistered document. Significantly, Bhagirathi was not examined as a witness by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of Survey Nos.16 and 18. Significantly, the measurements of the suit property were absent and the property being held relatable to Schedule—G in Exhibit P.3, also did not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. The Court below having proceeded to address several documents, whereby the defendant is said to have acknowledged the possession of the suit property by the predecessors of the plaintiff, is wholly immaterial as the burden was clearly on the plaintiff to establish his title over the suit property. The ownership of the plaintiffs having been declared relying on the endorsements of the City Survey authorities and even of khata, tax-paid receipts, is hardly evidence of ownership and reliance being placed on the same leads to a miscarriage of justice when there are no prima facie documents of proof of title. The same could be said of other revenue records and the orders of authorities referred to in the course of the judgment in affirming the claim to title of the suit property. 14. There is no attempt made to ascertain whether the suit property is the very property referred to in those documents. When there is no indication that they are one and the same, there was clearly misreading of Exhibit P.27, which was in relation to a civil suit filed by one Byanna, claiming title to the suit schedule property and relied upon by the plaintiffs, when that suit was dismissed on the ground that Byanna had failed to prove his lawful title to the suit property. Therefore, the counsel seeks that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree be set aside. 15. Therefore, the counsel seeks that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree be set aside. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would seek to justify the judgment and would support the reasoning of the court below. 16. From a close examination of the record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was first of all, necessary for the plaintiffs to have demonstrated the genesis of the title to the property as claimed by Venkataswamappa though it was stated that Venkataswamappa had acquired the property. There was no such title deed produced nor was any khata registered in his name nor had the formed sites with the approval of the local authority. Further, insofar as reliance sought to be placed on a Will executed by Venkataswamappa, is also highly irregular. The court could not have dispensed with the proof of the will in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 andS.63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Will was marked subject to production of the original. Though the plaintiff had sought for summoning the original, no further attempt was made to produce or mark the same. Similar was the case insofar as the Will at Exhibit P.27 of Narayanaswamy, which also could not have been relied upon. Neither the attestors of the Will not the scribe or any person, who could speak about the Will and their sound disposing state of mind had been examined. Insofar as Exhibit P.3 is concerned, it is not a memorandum of partition, recording an earlier division and enjoyment of the properties, but is intended to release and relinquish the shares held by respective parties in favour of others. Insofar as Schedule-G property, which is said to correspondent to the suit property is concerned, parties 1 to 6 and 8 therein, have chosen to relinquish their respective title and interest in the property in favour of the seventh party in the very document. Therefore, the finding of the court below that it was a memorandum of oral partition recording an earlier partition and therefore, did not require registration, is an incorrect finding. The document can only be treated as a partition deed in present and therefore, was compulsorily registrable. The court was clearly in error. Therefore, the finding of the court below that it was a memorandum of oral partition recording an earlier partition and therefore, did not require registration, is an incorrect finding. The document can only be treated as a partition deed in present and therefore, was compulsorily registrable. The court was clearly in error. If the basis of the title that is conveyed under the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is that document, namely, memorandum of partition, the same could not have been relied upon nor can the court act upon it, in accepting the title of Bhagirathi, the vendor of the plaintiff. Consequently, the sale deed executed by Bhagirathi in favour of the plaintiff would be rendered invalid. It is also not clear that in the absence of the exact dimensions of the suit property being mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, that the same could be held relatable to Schedule-C, of the said partition deed, Exhibit P.3. Hence, the said documents are merely self-serving documents of the plaintiff and his vendor and cannot confer any title thereon. The discussion by the court below with reference to the several incidental documents that have been produced by the plaintiff, to assert a claim over the suit property are not reference to documents of title, but are only documents pertaining to the incidental proceedings, which cannot be safely relied upon to find title as claimed by the plaintiff. One other significant circumstance is the alternative claim set up by the plaintiffs of having perfected their title by adverse possession. Such an alternative plea runs counter to their claim to ownership and can hardly be sustained. It is only if the plaintiffs acknowledge the ownership of the defendant, that a plea of adverse possession can even be raised. Therefore, this is yet another glaring circumstance that has been overlooked by the court below. Hence on more than one count, it can be said that the plaintiffs had miserably failed to establish title over the suit property and therefore, were not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The trial court has committed an irregularity in accepting the claim of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court is set aside and the suit is dismissed.