JUDGMENT K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—This appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 183/2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Davangere, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2010 passed therein, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule property and directing the defendants to handover the vacant possession of 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff. During the course of the judgment, the parties herein would be referred to with reference to their ranking in the trial court. 2. The sole plaintiff filed the suit on 03.12.2001 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Davangere, in O.S. 364/2001 for the relief of declaration, declaring that he is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'B' schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property. 3. The property described in plaint 'A' schedule is plot No. 89 formed in Survey No. 74/1 later numbered as 74/1-YP1 situated in Yellammanagara, Davangere City, measuring East-West: 30 ft: and North-South: 78 ft. A portion of plaint 'A' schedule property measuring East-West towards north: 30 ft. and towards South: 13 ft. and North-South: 78 ft. has been described as 'B' schedule property. 4. A portion of plaint 'A' schedule property measuring East-West towards north: 30 ft. and towards South: 13 ft. and North-South: 78 ft. has been described as 'B' schedule property. 4. The plaintiff inter alia contended that the plaint 'A' schedule property along with other neighbouring properties was originally owned by one J. Siddappa, S/o. Jogappara Siddappa; that the said Siddappa sold Plot No. 89 formed by him in the said land in favour of Smt. Parvathamma under registered sale deed dated 21.12.1978; that said Parvathamma in turn sold plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of one Smt. Rajalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 05.02.1979 and placed the purchaser Smt. Rajalakshmi in possession of the said site; that subsequently, under registered sale deed dated 13.04.1982 the said Rajalakshmi sold plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and placed him in possession of the said property; that eversince the date of the purchase, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property and also constructed a cattle shed in a portion of the plaint 'A' schedule property; that subsequently in the year 1998, Davangere Urban Development Authority (for short, 'DUDA') while forming a ring-road, acquired a portion of the plaint 'A' schedule property and what remains after acquisition is plaint 'B' schedule property and thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'B' schedule property; that the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'B' schedule property of the plaintiff and on 23.11.2001 they threatened to demolish the cattle shed and take forcible possession, which the plaintiff could defend with great difficulty. Therefore, he filed the suit for declaration of his title and for a consequential relief of injunction. 5. Defendant No. 1 is the wife and Defendant No. 3 is the son of Defendant No. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. They admitted that the property originally belonged to Siddappa and he sold the plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of Smt. Parvathamma. However, they denied the case of the plaintiff that the said Parvathamma sold plaint 'A' schedule property to Smt. Rajalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 05.02.1979. They admitted that the property originally belonged to Siddappa and he sold the plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of Smt. Parvathamma. However, they denied the case of the plaintiff that the said Parvathamma sold plaint 'A' schedule property to Smt. Rajalakshmi under registered sale deed dated 05.02.1979. They contended that Parvathamma had not executed any sale deed in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi nor Smt. Rajalakshmi was placed in possession of the same. They denied the further case of the plaintiff that Rajalakshmi in turn sold the plaint 'A' schedule property to the plaintiff. They contended that Smt. Parvathamma, as absolute owner in possession of plaint 'A' schedule property, sold the same to the 1st defendant under registered sale deed dated 03.09.1979 and placed Defendant No. 1 in possession of the same and eversince the same, the 1st defendant along with her husband and son has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property. They also admitted that a portion of plaint 'A' schedule property was acquired for formation of the ring-road and what is remaining is only the plaint 'B' schedule property. However, they contended that they are in actual physical and lawful possession of plaint 'B' schedule property as its absolute owners thereof. They also contended that immediately after purchase, they put-up a temporary structure with a roof of cement asbestos sheet in an area measuring 24 ft. x 14 ft. and they have been residing therein. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of plaint 'B' schedule property and that the plaintiff has no title to the suit schedule property, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought in the plaint. 6. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint contending that after filing of the suit, the defendants forcibly entered the plaint 'B' schedule property and took forcible possession of the same from the plaintiff with the help of their henchmen. Thus the defendants have trespassed into the plaint 'B' schedule property, as such, they are in illegal possession of the same. He also, sought the relief of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from the defendants. 7. Thus the defendants have trespassed into the plaint 'B' schedule property, as such, they are in illegal possession of the same. He also, sought the relief of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from the defendants. 7. The defendants filed additional written statement denying the allegation that they forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and contended that, at no point of time they have dispossessed the plaintiff from the plaint 'B' schedule property and since the plaintiff was never in possession of the same, question of dispossessing him does not arise. They contended that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'B' schedule property, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of possession. Subsequently, thereafter the suit came to be transferred to the District Court and was renumbered as O.S. No. 183/2009. 8. When the matter was pending before the District Court, the defendants amended their written statement and inter alia contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property openly, uninterruptedly and hostile to the interest of the plaintiff and thus they have perfected their title over the suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possession. 9. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues. Issues: i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of suit schedule 'B' property. Issue No. (i) was deleted as per order dated 24.10.2009 ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an order of permanent injunction in respect of suit 'B' schedule property? iii) Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without seeking the relief of possession? iv) What order or decree? Additional Issue: Dated 24.10.2009 i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of 'B' schedule property and during the pendency of the suit, defendants have forcibly took possession of the same from him by way of illegal act? ii) Is the plaintiff entitled for vacant possession of 'B' schedule property from the defendant? Additional Issue: Dated 17.12.2009 i) Whether defendants prove that in the alternative, they have perfected their tide on suit property by way of adverse possession? 10. In the light of the amendment of the plaint and framing of additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 on 24.10.2009, Issue No. 1 was ordered to be deleted. 11. Additional Issue: Dated 17.12.2009 i) Whether defendants prove that in the alternative, they have perfected their tide on suit property by way of adverse possession? 10. In the light of the amendment of the plaint and framing of additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 on 24.10.2009, Issue No. 1 was ordered to be deleted. 11. During the trial of the case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and relied on documentary evidence-Exs. P1 to P26. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and two more witnesses were examined as D.Ws. 2 and 3. Defendants relied on documentary evidence marked as Exs. Dl to D23. 12. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the Court below by the judgment under appeal, answered Issue No. 2 and Additional Issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed on 24.10.2009 in me affirmative and Issue No. 3 as well as Additional Issue framed on 17.12.2009 in the negative, holding that the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit schedule property, as such, he is entitled for declaration of title and that the plaintiff has also proved that, during the pendency of the suit the defendants forcibly took possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property from plaintiff and since the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint 'B' schedule property, he is entitled for the possession of the same. The trial Court also held that the defendants have failed to prove that they have perfected title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. In that view of the matter, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declared him as owner of the suit schedule property and directed the defendants to vacate and hand-over the possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants are in appeal before this Court. 13. I have heard Sri. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants and B.S. Satyanand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent. 14. Sri. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants are in appeal before this Court. 13. I have heard Sri. Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants and B.S. Satyanand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent. 14. Sri. Prasanna would submit as under: That the judgment under appeal is perverse and illegal being contrary to the evidence available on record and the trial court has not properly appreciated the case of the defendants; that the court below has failed to notice that the plaintiff has not proved execution of the sale deed by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi in accordance with law, therefore, no reliance could have been placed on the said sale deed for the purpose of declaring the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property; that the court below has committed serious error in holding that Smt. Parvathamma had no subsisting title over me suit schedule property to convey the same to the 1st defendant under the registered sale deed dated 03.09.1979; that court below has failed to appreciate that by virtue of this sale deed executed by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant became the owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property and since she was placed in possession of the same, she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same; that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of D.Ws. 2 and 3 with regard to the possession of the property by the defendants; that the court below has committed serious error in holding that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the plaint 'B' schedule property after filing of the suit and this finding is contrary to the evidence available on record as to the date on which the photographs of the structure existing on the property are taken; that the court below has failed to notice that this alleged forcible dispossession subsequent to the filing of the suit is only a ruse to save the period of limitation as the plaintiff was never in possession of the property and that he had lost whatever right he had over the same since the defendants by remaining in possession of the property from 1979 have perfected their title by adverse possession; that the finding of the trial court that plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the plea of the defendants setting-up tide in themselves is erroneous and in this regard, the court below has failed to take into consideration the various decisions of the Apex Court and also this court cited at the bar, in which it has been laid down that it is open to the defendants to take alternative plea regarding adverse possession notwithstanding that he has set-up tide in himself; that the court below has committed serious error in not noticing that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his possession of the property at any point of time and even if he is declared as owner of the property, his right to claim possession has been defeated by not taking any action for recovery of possession within the period allowed under law and since the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of possession; that the documents produced by the defendants would clearly establish their long and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule property for nearly 25 years prior to the suit, therefore, the court below ought to have upheld the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, as such, it is liable to be set aside and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 15. Per contra, Sri. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, as such, it is liable to be set aside and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 15. Per contra, Sri. B.S. Satyananda would submit that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality since the court below on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has recorded the findings which are just and reasonable, as such, the judgment under appeal does not warrant interference by this Court. He further contended that undisputedly Smt. Parvathamma was the owner in possession of the suit schedule property since both the plaintiff as well as defendants claimed title through Smt. Parvathamma and since the said Parvathamma had sold the suit schedule property in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi under the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1979, Smt. Parvathamma had no subsisting title to convey the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant under sale deed dated 03.09.1979, as such, the 1st defendant has not derived any title over the suit schedule property by virtue of the said sale; that the sale deed dated 05.02.1979 being a 30 years old document as on the date of its production before the court and its admission in evidence therefore, in view of the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the sale deed is not required to be proved by examining the attestors, as such the said sale deed has been proved as per law, therefore, the trial court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is entitled to be declared as such and that Defendant No. 1 did not derive any title to the same; that having regard to the recitals found in sale deed dated 05.02.1979, it is clear that the purchaser Smt. Rajalakshmi was placed in possession of the suit schedule property by vendor Smt. Parvathamma, therefore said Smt. Parvathamma, could not have delivered possession of the very same property to the 1st defendant on 03.09.1979, as such, the court below is justified in holding that Smt. Rajalakshmi, the vendor was in possession of the property and that subsequently, the plaintiff was placed in possession of the same on the date of the execution of sale deed by Smt. Rajalakshmi in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the court below is justified in declaring the plaintiff as owner in possession of the property; that having regard to the evidence available on record, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, as such, the defendants are in unlawful and illegal possession of the plaint 'B' schedule property, as such, they are liable to hand-over the possession of the same to the plaintiff, therefore, the said finding cannot be termed as perverse having regard to the evidence available on record; that the revenue documents produced by the defendants are all concocted and created only to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, as such, the court below has rightly not placed any reliance on any of those documents. He further contended that, having regard to the contention of the defendants setting-up title in themselves, they are not entitled to raise plea of adverse possession, as such, the plea of adverse possession was inconsistent with their earlier plea, therefore, the court below is justified in rejecting the plea of adverse possession put-forth by the defendants; that the plea of adverse possession has not been established by the defendants by adducing cogent and acceptable evidence, therefore, the court below is justified in holding that the defendants have failed to prove the plea of adverse possession, therefore, the court below is justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. He contended that the judgment under appeal does not warrant interference by this Court, therefore, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 16. Learned counsel appearing on both sides in support of their contentions relied on several decisions: 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submissions made on both sides, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are.- i) Whether the court below is not justified in declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property? ii) Whether the court below is not justified in holding that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit schedule property by the defendants after filing of the suit? iii) Whether the defendants were entitled to raise plea of adverse possession? If so, whether the court below is justified in rejecting the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants? ii) Whether the court below is not justified in holding that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit schedule property by the defendants after filing of the suit? iii) Whether the defendants were entitled to raise plea of adverse possession? If so, whether the court below is justified in rejecting the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants? iv) Whether the judgment under appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court? 18. There is no dispute that plaint 'B' schedule property is a portion of the plaint 'A' schedule property. It is also not in dispute that a portion of plaint 'A' schedule property came to be acquired by DUDA for formation of a ring-road and after such acquisition, what is left-out is the extent described in plaint 'B' schedule property. The relief of declaration and possession sought in the plaint is with reference to the plaint 'B' schedule property. As could be seen from the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence, it is manifestly clear that the plaint 'A' schedule property along with few other sites formed in Survey No. 74/1 was owned by Sri. G. Siddappa, S/o. Jogappara Siddappa. The said G. Siddappa under the registered sale deed dated 21.12.1978 marked as Ex. D2, sold site Nos. 85 to 89 totally measuring East-West; 150 ft. and North-South: 79 ft. in favour of Smt. Parvathamma, w/o. Shanmukhappa. Thus, as admitted by both parties, plaint 'A' schedule property bearing plot No. 89 formed in Survey No. 74/1 was owned by Smt. Parvathamma. Reading of the pleadings of the parties, makes it clear that both the plaintiff and defendants claimed title through said Smt. Parvathamma. Therefore, it is an undisputed fact that Smt. Parvathamma was the owner of plaint 'A' schedule property. 19. As noticed supra, the plaintiff for the purpose of seeking the relief of declaration, contended that Smt. Parvathamma sold plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi under the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1979 marked as Ex. P10 and placed said Smt. Rajalakshmi in possession of the said site and subsequently said Rajalakshmi by sale deed dated 13.04.1982 marked as Ex. P. 11, sold plot No. 89 in favour of the plaintiff and placed him in possession of the same. P10 and placed said Smt. Rajalakshmi in possession of the said site and subsequently said Rajalakshmi by sale deed dated 13.04.1982 marked as Ex. P. 11, sold plot No. 89 in favour of the plaintiff and placed him in possession of the same. However, according to the defendants, Smt. Parvathamma sold plot No. 89 in favour of the 1st defendant under the registered sale deed dated 03.09.1979 marked as Ex. D1. No doubt, the defendants in their written statement have denied execution of the sale deed in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi by Smt. Parvathamma and have put the plaintiff to strict proof of the said allegation. It is under these circumstances, it was contended that the plaintiff has not proved execution of the sale deed by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi as per Ex. P10, as such, the court below is not justified in declaring the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Of course, the plaintiff has not examined either the vendor or any of the attesting witnesses under Ex. P10. The plaintiff during his evidence has produced the original sale deed and has marked the same as Ex. P10. He has spoken about the sale in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi from Smt. Parvathamma and in turn from Smt. Rajalakshmi in his favour under Ex. P11. Exs. P. 10 and P. 11 are original registered documents, as such, they are primary evidence and are admissible in evidence. 20. Perusal of cross-examination of P.W. 1 indicates that the defendants have not seriously challenged the sale by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi. What has been suggested to P.W. 1 in the cross-examination is that the original sale deed under which Smt. Parvathamma purchased the property from Siddappa has been produced by the defendants. In other words, the purport of this suggestion was that the original tide deed under which Smt. Parvathamma acquired the property was not handed-over to the purchaser under Ex. P. 10. On the other hand, it was handed-over to the 1st defendant, who is the purchaser under Ex. D1. Mere delivery of original title deed by itself would not constitute conveying title. Even in the absence of delivery of original title deed, title in immovable property could be conveyed by means of a registered sale deed, provided the vendor who executes the sale deed has marketable tide to convey. D1. Mere delivery of original title deed by itself would not constitute conveying title. Even in the absence of delivery of original title deed, title in immovable property could be conveyed by means of a registered sale deed, provided the vendor who executes the sale deed has marketable tide to convey. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the sale by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi under Ex. P. 10 is not seriously disputed. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that D.W. 2 - Yellappa, examined by the defendants, in the cross-examination has admitted that he is one of the signatory to Ex. P. 10. In the cross-examination, D.W. 2 has admitted that the signature found in Ex. P. 10 as per Ex. P. 10(a) is his signature. He has further admitted that he subscribed the said signature as a witness since he was asked to put signature as a witness. Ex. P. 10(a) is the signature of D.W. 2 who identified the executant namely, Smt. Parvathamma before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document Thus, the evidence of D.W. 2 itself is sufficient to indicate that Smt. Parvathamma executed the sale deed as per Ex. P. 10 in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi conveying the plaint 'A' schedule property. 21. In addition to the above, document-Ex. P. 10 is a 30 years old document. The document was executed and registered on 05.02.1979. The said document was produced before the court and admitted in evidence through P.W. 1 on 11.11.2009. As on the date when the document was admitted in evidence, it was already 30 years old. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for a presumption as to the documents which are 30 years old. According to this section, Where any document, purporting to be proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the court in the particular case considers proper, the court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested. 22. As noticed supra, as on the date of production of Ex. 22. As noticed supra, as on the date of production of Ex. P. 10 and its admission in evidence, the document was 30 years old. As could be seen from the endorsement on Ex. P. 10 by the Sub-Registrar, the document was registered on 05.02.1979 itself. Therefore, the document is proved to be 30 years old. The document was produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, the document has been produced from proper custody. In that view of the matter, the presumption as to its execution and attestation has to be drawn as provided under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, there was no need or occasion on the part of the plaintiff to have summoned any witnesses to prove Ex. P. 10. On the other hand, the defendants have not placed any rebuttal evidence to show that Smt. Parvathamma had not executed the sale deed as per Ex. P. 10 in favour of Rajalakshmi. The very witness examined on behalf of the defendants, as noticed supra, has admitted that he signed Ex. P. 10 for identifying me executant before the sub-registrar. Therefore, the court below is justified in holding that under Ex. P. 10 Smt. Parvathamma sold plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi on 05.02.1979. The finding recorded by the trial court in this behalf is sound and reasonable and no fault can be found with regard to the said finding. Thus, from the above it is clear that upon executing the sale deed-Ex. P. 10 dated 05.02.1979, Smt. Parvathamma cease to be the owner of the plaint 'A' schedule property bearing plot No. 89. From that date onwards, she had no subsisting title or interest over the said property. Even according to the defendants, the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant as per Ex. D1 was on 03.09.1979. As on the date of execution of Ex. D1, as discussed supra, Smt. Parvathamma had no subsisting title or interest over the plaint 'A' schedule property, as such, she could not have conveyed any title to the purchaser under Ex. D1. Therefore, the 1st defendant, who is the purchaser under Ex. D1, has not derived any title to the plaint 'A' schedule property by virtue of the said sale deed. Therefore, Ex. D1 cannot be a basis to defeat the title of the purchaser under Ex. P10. 23. D1. Therefore, the 1st defendant, who is the purchaser under Ex. D1, has not derived any title to the plaint 'A' schedule property by virtue of the said sale deed. Therefore, Ex. D1 cannot be a basis to defeat the title of the purchaser under Ex. P10. 23. P.W. 1 has asserted in his evidence that under Ex. P11, Smt. Rajalakshmi sold plaint 'A' schedule property in his favour. The said part of evidence of P.W. 1 is not seriously challenged. Ex. P11 being a registered sale deed and P.W. 1 having stated on oath about the execution of the same, in the absence of any serious challenge to that part of evidence, the trial court, in my opinion, is justified in holding that the plaintiff has proved that he is the purchaser of plaint 'A' schedule property from Smt. Rajalakshmi under Ex. P11. By virtue of Exs. P. 10 and P. 11, as rightly held by the trial court, the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit schedule property. The evidence placed by the defendants would not in any way defeat the title of the plaintiff to the plaint 'A' schedule property. As noticed supra, mere delivery of the original sale deed in favour of Smt. Parvathamma to the 1st defendant would not in any way render the title of the plaintiff invalid. The defendant No. 1 has not derived any title to plaint 'A' schedule property under Ex. D1, since the vendor under the said sale deed, namely Smt. Parvathamma had no subsisting title as on that date. In that view of the matter, the trial court is justified in holding that the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit schedule property and he is entitled to be declared as such. The said finding does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this court. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard, is upheld. 24. According to the plaintiff, possession of plaint 'A' schedule property was delivered to Smt. Rajalakshmi by Smt. Parvathamma on the date of Ex. P. 10 and subsequently, Smt. Rajalakshmi placed the plaintiff in possession of the same on the date of the execution of the sale deed-Ex. P. 11. 24. According to the plaintiff, possession of plaint 'A' schedule property was delivered to Smt. Rajalakshmi by Smt. Parvathamma on the date of Ex. P. 10 and subsequently, Smt. Rajalakshmi placed the plaintiff in possession of the same on the date of the execution of the sale deed-Ex. P. 11. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that as on the date of the suit, he was in possession of the plaint 'A' schedule property and subsequent to filing of the suit, defendants dispossessed him forcibly and they are in illegal possession of the same. Therefore, he sought for delivery of possession of plaint 'B' schedule property from the defendants. However, it is the contention of the defendants that as on the date of the sale deed-Ex. D1, the 1st defendant was placed in possession of the property by Smt. Parvathamma and eversince that date, the 1st defendant along with her husband and son arraigned as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 has been in uninterrupted possession of the same as absolute owners thereof and at no point of time, the plaintiff was in possession of the property. To substantiate their contention with regard to possession, the defendants sought to place reliance on RTC extracts and mutation register extracts. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the revenue documents produced by the defendants are all created and fabricated documents, as such, the trial court has not placed any reliance on the same. 25. The recitals under Ex. P. 10 clearly indicate that on the date of the sale deed Smt. Parvathamma placed the purchaser Smt. Rajalakshmi in possession of the plaint 'A' schedule property. As noticed supra, on account of the sale deed-Ex. P. 10 on 05.02.1979, Smt. Parvathamma ceased to be in possession of the property from that day, therefore, it cannot be said that as on the date of Ex. D1 namely 03.09.1979, Smt. Parvathamma was in possession was of plaint 'A' schedule property so that it could be delivered to the 1st defendant being the purchaser under Ex. D1. No doubt, in Ex. D1 also there is a recital regarding delivery of possession by the vendor to the purchaser. However, in the light of the recital in Ex. D1 namely 03.09.1979, Smt. Parvathamma was in possession was of plaint 'A' schedule property so that it could be delivered to the 1st defendant being the purchaser under Ex. D1. No doubt, in Ex. D1 also there is a recital regarding delivery of possession by the vendor to the purchaser. However, in the light of the recital in Ex. P10, Smt. Parvathamma having already delivered possession of plaint 'A' schedule property to Smt. Rajalakshmi, could not have delivered possession to the 1st defendant on the date of sale deed-Ex. D1. Therefore, the defendants cannot base their possession of plaint 'A' schedule property under Ex. D1. No doubt the name of Smt. Rajalakshmi, the purchaser under Ex. P. 10 was not mutated in the revenue records soon after the purchase nor the name of the plaintiff was mutated after the sale deed-Ex. P. 11. The plaintiff has produced a copy of the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Ex. P12. In the said order, there is a reference that a request was made to mutate the name of Smt. Rajalakshmi being the purchaser under Ex. P. 10, but the same was rejected in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 and subsequently on repealing of the said Act, a further request was made by the plaintiff herein and that was acceded to and the name of the plaintiff was ordered to be mutated as kathedar. 26. Ex. P. 13 is the extract of mutation register, whereunder the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants have marked Ex. D. 6, a copy of the mutation register extract in respect of MR. No. 93/79-80. According to Ex. D. 6, katha of site No. 89 in Survey No. 74/1 was made in the name of Lakshmamma kom Nanjappa pursuant to sale deed dated 03.09.1979. Ex. D. 5 is the RTC extract for the year 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 in respect of Survey No. 74/1, wherein apparently the name of Smt. Lakshmamma, the 1st defendant is entered in column No. 9 but column No. 12(2) meant for mentioning the name of the person in cultivation has been left blank. Ex. D4 relates to Survey No. 74/123A1AP for the year 1999-2000 and Ex. Ex. D4 relates to Survey No. 74/123A1AP for the year 1999-2000 and Ex. D. 3 relates to Survey No. 74/123AP8 for the year 2000-01. These revenue records, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, cannot be the sole basis to hold that the defendants were in possession of the property. As could be seen from the original of Ex. D1, the entire sale deed is typed wherein the property sold is described as plot No. 89 measuring 30 x 79 ft. situated in Davangere, 5th Ward, West of Vinobha Nagara. There was no mention of survey number in the sale deed. But, number 74/1' and words (Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.) found in Ex. D1 are in handwriting. The said addition is not attested by any one. Apparently the said addition appears to be subsequent to the registration of the document. For this finding, I draw sustenance from the fact that the 1st defendant did not produce the encumbrance certificate obtained immediately after the sale deed. The encumbrance certificate produced as per Ex. D. 7 was obtained on 14.12.2001. This encumbrance certificate reflects the sale transaction between G. Siddappa and Smt. Parvathamma and from Smt. Parvathamma in favour of the 1st defendant. It does not make any reference to the sale deed-Ex. P. 10. 27. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce the encumbrance certificates obtained by him on 13.04.1982, 01.07.1991 and 19.02.2011. Learned counsel for the defendants opposed this application on the ground that the plaintiff has not satisfied the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 for production of these documents. In my considered opinion, these documents now sought to be produced are relevant for a proper decision in the matter and no prejudice would be caused if these documents are permitted to be produced. Accordingly, the application is allowed and three encumbrance certificates produced along with the application are admitted in evidence. The first encumbrance certificate produced was obtained on 13.04.1982 for the period from 01.04.1970 to 12.04.1982. As per this encumbrance certificate, the sale transaction between Siddappa and Smt. Parvathamma and from Smt. Parvathamma to Smt. Rajalakshmi are reflected. The second encumbrance certificate was obtained on 01.07.1999 for the period from 01.04.1982 to 27.06.1989. This reflects only the transaction between Smt. Rajalakshmi and the plaintiff. As per this encumbrance certificate, the sale transaction between Siddappa and Smt. Parvathamma and from Smt. Parvathamma to Smt. Rajalakshmi are reflected. The second encumbrance certificate was obtained on 01.07.1999 for the period from 01.04.1982 to 27.06.1989. This reflects only the transaction between Smt. Rajalakshmi and the plaintiff. The third encumbrance certificate obtained on 07.02.2011 in respect of plot No. 89 formed in Survey No. 74/1 reflects sale transaction between Siddappa and Smt. Parvathamma and by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of Smt. Rajalakshmi and by Smt. Rajalakshmi in favour of the plaintiff. In none of these encumbrance certificates, the transaction evidenced by Ex. Dl is reflected. Obviously, the encumbrance in respect of Survey No. 74/1 could not reflect the transaction covered under Ex. D1 for the reason that the original sale deed did not refer to Survey No. 74/1. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the 1st defendant was placed in possession of plaint 'A' schedule property on the date of Ex. D1 has no substance. The entries made in revenue records based on Ex. D1 cannot be the basis to hold that the 1st defendant was in possession of the property pursuant to Ex. D1, since as on the date of Ex. D1, Smt. Parvathamma was not in possession of the property and she could not have placed the 1st defendant in possession of the same. The other circumstance projected by the defendants to defeat the claim of plaintiff for possession is that, a portion of the land was acquired by DUDA and in the acquisition proceedings, the 1st defendant was shown as interested person. Copy of the preliminary notification produced as per Ex. P15 indicates the name of the plaintiff in respect of site No. 89 as the interested person. The name of the 1st defendant does not find place in Preliminary Notification-Ex. D15. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the name of the 1st defendant was also shown along with the plaintiff in the final notification, copy of the final notification is not produced either by the plaintiff or by the defendants. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, as held by the trial court, satisfactorily establishes that the plaintiff was in possession of plaint 'A' schedule property as on the date of the suit. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, as held by the trial court, satisfactorily establishes that the plaintiff was in possession of plaint 'A' schedule property as on the date of the suit. In the light of the above discussions, the evidence placed by the defendants that the 1st defendant was in possession of the property pursuant to Ex. D1, has been rightly rejected by the trial court. The plaintiff in his oral evidence has categorically stated that subsequent to filing of the suit, he was dispossessed by the defendants forcibly. 28. Learned counsel for the defendant by pointing-out to some of the answers elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 sought to contend that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property as on the date of the suit. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff was resident of Aliwada in Harihar Taluk, whereas the property situated in Davangere City; that the plaintiff is ignorant of the portion of the property acquired by DUDA; that the plaintiff does not have any knowledge as to the extent of the land acquired by DUDA and the extent of remaining property and that the plaintiff does not know as to the extent of the construction standing on the property. Merely because the plaintiff is residing in a village situated in Harihara Taluk, it cannot be said that he was not in possession of the property. Even if a person is residing at a far of place, still he can be construed as in possession of the property situated in some other place, unless it is shown that he is ousted from physical possession. No doubt, P.W. 1 in his evidence has pleaded his ignorance about the extent of property acquired and also the extent of the remaining property, that by itself would not indicate that he was not in possession of the property. Admittedly, there is some structure existing on the plaint 'B' schedule property. The question is, who built this structure. According to the plaintiff, much before filing of the suit, he erected the cattle shed thereon and two days after filing of the suit, the defendants forcibly trespassed into the property and dispossessed him. However, according to the defendants, they constructed a house of asbestos sheet roof and they have been residing therein. The question is, who built this structure. According to the plaintiff, much before filing of the suit, he erected the cattle shed thereon and two days after filing of the suit, the defendants forcibly trespassed into the property and dispossessed him. However, according to the defendants, they constructed a house of asbestos sheet roof and they have been residing therein. Having regard to this fact, the contention of the defendants that they were in possession of the property eversince the date of Ex. D1 cannot be accepted. There is no difficulty in accepting the case of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the property as on the date of the suit. The defendants except placing reliance on Ex. D1 to substantiate their contention regarding possession, have not put-forth any other circumstance of coming into possession of the property on any other date prior to the date of the suit. If Ex. D1 does not convey any title nor possession to the 1st defendant as purchaser and in the absence or any other circumstance which would indicate the defendants coming into possession of the same on any other subsequent date, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of the suit and he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants, subsequent to filing of the suit. Of course, in the light of the statement made by the plaintiff, the defendants have been in possession of plaint 'B' schedule property subsequent to the date of the suit and therefore, the plaintiff sought for delivery of possession of the same to him. 29. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff was in possession of plaint 'B' schedule property as on the date of the suit and he was subsequently dispossessed by the defendants, as such, he is entitled to the delivery of possession of the property. 30. The defendants have put-forth the plea of adverse possession as an alternative plea. According to them, they had perfected their title by adverse possession by remaining in possession of the property for more than the prescribed period of 12 years. 30. The defendants have put-forth the plea of adverse possession as an alternative plea. According to them, they had perfected their title by adverse possession by remaining in possession of the property for more than the prescribed period of 12 years. In the light of the finding recorded that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of the suit and subsequent to filing of the suit, he was dispossessed by the defendants forcibly, the plea of adverse possession put-forth by the defendants does not merit any consideration. Even otherwise, having regard to the defence put-forth by the defendants by setting-up title in themselves, the plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the plea regarding title and both the pleas are mutually destructive of each other and the defendants cannot raise such a plea. In this regard, learned counsel for the defendants sought to contend that the alternative plea of adverse possession cannot be rejected as inconsistent with the defence of title and even if the court rejects the defence put-forth by the defendants regarding title, the court is required to consider the plea of adverse possession. In this regard, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court reported in Alla Baksh Vs. Mohd. Hussain, ILR (1996) KAR 1340 and 2009 SAR (Civil) 684 : (2009 AIR SCW 5439) [L.N. Aswathama and another v. P. Prakash] 31. It is well-settled by catena of decisions that mere long possession is not necessarily an adverse possession [See S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 ]. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the purpose of argument that the defendants, who have been in possession even prior to the date of the suit, merely because they were in possession of the property from the year 1979, that by itself cannot be construed as adverse possession. As indicated supra, the defendants set-up title in themselves in respect of the suit schedule property and alternatively put-forth the plea of adverse possession. 32. In Arundhati Mishra (Smt) Vs. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey, (1994) 2 SCC 29 the Apex Court has held that the defendant cannot plead adverse possession as an alternative plea. In that case, initially the defendant had filed his written statement setting title in himself. 32. In Arundhati Mishra (Smt) Vs. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey, (1994) 2 SCC 29 the Apex Court has held that the defendant cannot plead adverse possession as an alternative plea. In that case, initially the defendant had filed his written statement setting title in himself. Subsequently, by way of an amendment he sought to add an alterative plea that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The Apex Court held that such amendment cannot be permitted in law. 33. In Mohan Lal (Deceased) through his Lrs. Kachru and Others Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar and Another, 1996 (1) SCALE 5 , the Apex Court held that the plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the plea of possession under the sale agreement. The relevant observation found in para Nos. 3 and 4 reads as under: 3. The only question is whether the appellant is entitled to retain possession of the suit property. Two pleas have been raised by the appellant in defence. One is that having remained in possession from 08.03.1956, he has perfected his title by prescription. Secondly, he pleaded that he is entitled to retain his possession by operation of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act'). 4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., up to completing the period of his title by prescription nee vi, nee clam, nee precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant. 34. In the case of L.N. Aswathama and Another Vs. P. Prakash, JT (2009) 9 SC 527 , the Apex Court after referring the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal's case cited supra, has summarized the legal position emerging with regard to the plea of adverse possession, in paragraph-17, which reads as under:-- 17. 34. In the case of L.N. Aswathama and Another Vs. P. Prakash, JT (2009) 9 SC 527 , the Apex Court after referring the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal's case cited supra, has summarized the legal position emerging with regard to the plea of adverse possession, in paragraph-17, which reads as under:-- 17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well-settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period for prescription will not commence. (Vide: P. Periasami (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. P. Periathambi and Others, 1995 (6) SCALE 50 , Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita and Others, (2003) 3 BLJR 2399 and P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others Vs. Revamma and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1753 ). 35. However, learned counsel for the defendants sought to rely on the observations made in the said decision at paragraph-18, wherein it has been observed that, when a person is in possession asserting to be owner, even if he fails to establish his title, his possession, would still be adverse to the true owner. Therefore, the two pleas put-forth by the defendant in that case are not inconsistent pleas but alternative pleas available on the same facts. 36. Having noticed the legal position on the point, Their Lordships with reference to the facts of that case, have held that the plea of adverse possession in the circumstances of that case was an alternative plea and it cannot be termed as inconsistent plea. In that case, the defendant had claimed title through 3rd party, but failed to prove the same. However, he had not denied the title of the plaintiff therein. He had claimed possession through some other person. In that case, the defendant had claimed title through 3rd party, but failed to prove the same. However, he had not denied the title of the plaintiff therein. He had claimed possession through some other person. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession depending upon the facts of each case will have to be decided as to whether it was an alternative plea or it would be an inconsistent plea. However, legal position as set-out in paragraph-17 of the said decision, extracted supra, would make it clear that the pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter, does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. In the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, the decision in ILR 1996 Kar 1340, has no relevance. In the case on hand, the defendants in their written statement have set-up title in themselves pursuant to the sale deed-Ex. D1 executed by Smt. Parvathamma. However, as on that date, since Smt. Parvathamma had no subsisting title, she could not convey any title in favour of the 1st defendant nor she could deliver the possession of the same on that date. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the, plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the plea based on title. The 1st defendant had not renounced that character, as such, as rightly held by the trial court, the plea of adverse possession was inconsistent. However, in the light of the findings recorded by the court below as well as by this court, since the defendants have failed to prove their possession of the suit schedule property prior to filing of the suit, the plea of adverse possession was not available to the defendants. In this view of the matter, the court below is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the trial court on all material issues are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence available on record. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed. In the circumstance of the case, I direct the parties to bear respective costs.