JUDGMENT : Ashok S. Kinagi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2023 passed in O.S.No. 209/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Appellants are the defendants. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs and rest of the respondents are defendants. Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction, mesne profits and other allied reliefs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 2 is the widow and plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 are the children of one late Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the children and defendant No. 4 is the daughter-in-law of one late Bhimappa Channappa Kapali. The names of defendant Nos.5 to 17 is entered in the record of rights of some of the suit agricultural lands. According to the plaintiffs, said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda got suit schedule properties under the registered gift deed dated 17.01.1961 executed by one Smt.Sh'vawwa wife of Gireppa Kamgouda. After the demise of Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda, plaintiffs inherited the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 or their ancestors have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. However, said Bhimappa Channappa Kapali filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal seeking occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule properties. The Land Tribunal rejected Form No. 7. The dispute went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal holding that Bhimappa Channappa Kapali was not the tenant of the suit schedule properties and it is held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the said proceedings. It further held that possession of said Bhimappa Channappa Kapali and thereafter the possession of his heirs over the suit schedule properties is illegal and unlawful. According to the plaintiffs, during the lifetime of said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda, the said Shivawwa Gireppa Kamgouda initiated proceedings for cancellation of gift deed executed by her in his favour. The said suit came to be dismissed which was confirmed by this court vide order dated 16.11.1971 passed in PSA No. 28/1968. The said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda died on 01.08.2010 and after his death, plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule properties. The said suit came to be dismissed which was confirmed by this court vide order dated 16.11.1971 passed in PSA No. 28/1968. The said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda died on 01.08.2010 and after his death, plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs requested the defendants to handover the vacant possession, but the defendants refused to handover the possession. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit for possession. 4. Defendant No. l filed written statement Defendant No. l filed written statement and defendant Nos.2 and 3 adopted the same by filing a memo. Defendant Nos.4 to 17 did not appear before the trial court and are placed ex-parte. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. l died and his legal heirs are brought on record as defendant Nos. 1A to 1F. Defendants have not disputed the genealogy of the family of plaintiffs and the family of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as pleaded in the plaint it is denied that deceased Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda acquired title to the suit schedule properties under registered gift deed dated 17.01.1961 executed by Shivawwa. It is contended that there is no delivery of possession under the said gift deed and as such, the same is not enforceable. The defendants and earlier the father of defendant Nos. 1 to are in possession of suit schedule properties openly, continuously, adverse to the interest of the real owner since 24.03.2008 and thereby they have perfected title to suit schedule properties by adverse possession and suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time and prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are the owners of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they are entitled to claim possession of the suit property from defendants No. l to 4? 3. Whether the defendants proves that, they have perfected their title over the suit property by way of adverse possession, as contended in Para-12 of the written statement? 4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? 5. What order or decree? Additional Issue 1. Whether the defendant No. l proves that he has developed the suit property as contended in the paragraph No. 14 of the written statement? 6. 4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? 5. What order or decree? Additional Issue 1. Whether the defendant No. l proves that he has developed the suit property as contended in the paragraph No. 14 of the written statement? 6. In order to prove their case, plaintiff No. l examined himself as P.W.l and got marked Exs.Pl to P16. Defendant No. 2 examined himself as D.W.l, one witness was examined as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D30. The trial court after recording the evidence and considering the oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and issue Nos.3 and additional issue No. l in the negative and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court filed this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title. She further submits that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are disputing the right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. She submits that trial court has not considered the material placed on record and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 and another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Debbarma (dead) through Legal Representatives v. Prabha Raja Debbarma and Others, 2023 (1) KCCR SN 85 (SC). On the these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda got suit schedule properties under the registered gift deed dated 17.01.1961 executed by one Smt.Shivawwa wife of Gireppa Kamgouda, After the death of said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda, plaintiffs nave inherited the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 or their ancestors have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. He submits that Bhimappa Channappa Kapali filed Form No. 7, which came to be dismissed. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 or their ancestors have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. He submits that Bhimappa Channappa Kapali filed Form No. 7, which came to be dismissed. The dispute went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal holding that Bhimappa Channappa Kapaii was not the tenant of the suit schedule properties and it is held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the said proceedings. It further held that possession of said Bhimappa Channappa Kapali and thereafter the possession of his heirs over the suit schedule properties is illegal and unlawful. He submits that during the lifetime of said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda, the said Shivawwa Gireppa Kamgouda initiated proceedings for cancellation of gift deed executed by her in his favour. The said suit came to be dismissed which was confirmed by this court vide order dated 16.11.1971 passed in RSA No. 28/1968. The said Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda died on 01.08.2010 and after his death, plaintiffs succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Heard, perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to claim possession of the suit property from defendant Nos. 1 to 4? (2) Whether defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession? (3) Whether defendants prove that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is perverse and arbitrary and calls for interference by this court? Re: Point No. 1. 11. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda got suit schedule properties under registered gift deed dated 17.01.1961 executed by one Smt.Shivawwa wife of Gireppa Kamgouda. After his demise, the plaintiffs have succeeded the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 or their ancestors have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. However, Bhimappa Channappa Kapali, i.e., father of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal rejected Form No. 7. After his demise, the plaintiffs have succeeded the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 or their ancestors have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. However, Bhimappa Channappa Kapali, i.e., father of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal rejected Form No. 7. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 165/2004 and the same came to be disposed of on 17.10.2012 holding that Bhimappa Channappa Kapali was not the tenant of the suit schedule properties and it is further held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the said proceedings. Plaintiff No. l was examined as P.W.l and he reiterated the averments made in the plaint in his examination-in-chief. He produced Exs.Pl to P10-Record of Rights, Exs.P11 to 14 are the Demand Register Extract, Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in W.A.No. 7109/1999 and Ex.P16 is the certified copy of the order in Civil Appal No. 165/2004. From perusal of the judgment passed in W.A.No. 7109/1999, it discloses that one Gerappa Kamgouda was the owner of the lands in question and he married Shivawwa. Gerappa died intestate and issue less. Shivawwa after the death of Gerappa executed registered gift deed dated 17.01.1961 in favour of Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda who is none other than the son of Gerappa's elder brother. Thereafter, at the instance of her brothers, Shivawwa filed a suit in O.S.No. 275/1961 challenging the said gift deed on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The said suit after contest came to be dismissed on 10.10.1963. Shivawwa preferred an appeal in R.A.No. 789/1965 which also came to be dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree, Shivawwa preferred appeal in RSA No. 28/1968 which also came to be dismissed on 16.11.1971 affirming the judgment and decree of the courts below. Further, Bhimappa Channappa Kapali has admitted that he attested the gift deed as a witness. On 17.08.1974 Bhimappa Channappa Kapali taking undue advantage of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act filed an application under Section 48A(1) for conferring occupancy rights in his favour. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry passed an order 02.07.1976 rejected Form No. 7 filed by Bhimappa Channppa Kapali. On 17.08.1974 Bhimappa Channappa Kapali taking undue advantage of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act filed an application under Section 48A(1) for conferring occupancy rights in his favour. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry passed an order 02.07.1976 rejected Form No. 7 filed by Bhimappa Channppa Kapali. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, he filed writ petition in W.P.No. 7085/1976, which came to be dismissed holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The said Bhimappa Channappa Kapali aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge preferred writ appeal. In the writ appeal, the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as the Land Tribunal were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry granted occupancy rights holding that Bhimappa Channappa Kapali is cultivating the land. Aggrieved by the said order Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda preferred writ petition in W.P.No. 2215/1995. The learned Single Judge by order vide order dated 16.09.1999 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and rejected Form No. 7. Bhimappa Channappa Kapali filed W.A.No. 7109/1999. The said writ appeal came to be dismissed and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 165/2004. The said civil appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2012. From perusal of the aforesaid records, it discloses that Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and after his demise plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule properties. As this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court recorded a finding that Bhimappa Channappa Kapali and thereafter the present defendants are in unlawful possession. The said finding passed in the aforesaid proceedings has attained finality. 12. Defendant No. 2 examined as D.W.l and he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement in his examination-in-chief. He deposed that he is aware of the fact that Shivawwa executed registered gift deed in favour of Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda. Further he stated Form No. 7 filed by Bhimppa Channappa Kapali came to be rejected and the same was challenged before this court in the writ petition and the said writ petition came to be dismissed. In the cross-examination he deposed as under: 13. Further he stated Form No. 7 filed by Bhimppa Channappa Kapali came to be rejected and the same was challenged before this court in the writ petition and the said writ petition came to be dismissed. In the cross-examination he deposed as under: 13. From perusal of the cross-examination of D.W.l, he admits the title of Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda by virtue of registered gift deed and after his demise plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties. In view of the admission of D.W.l that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties question of seeking the relief of declaration of title would not arise. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants are not applicable to the present case in hand. As observed above, this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court recorded a finding that defendants are in unlawful possession and the said finding attained finality. Plaintiffs on the strength of the order passed by this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court filed a suit for possession. Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession of the suit schedule properties from defendant Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No. l in the affirmative. Re: Point No. 2 14. It is the case of the defendants that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties since long period without interruption, obstruction and interference and hence, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. This court as well as Hon'bie Apex Court held that possession of the defendants is unlawful. The defendants unless and until admits the title of the plaintiffs cannot claim title by way of adverse possession. It is 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. Further, the defendants have not pleaded as to how and from which date their possession has become adverse to the real owner. There is lack of necessary pleadings and proof to say that the defendants have perfected their title to the suit schedule properties by adverse possession. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No. 2 in the negative. Re: Point No. 3. 15. There is lack of necessary pleadings and proof to say that the defendants have perfected their title to the suit schedule properties by adverse possession. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No. 2 in the negative. Re: Point No. 3. 15. The trial court after considering oral and documentary evidence and also placed reliance on the order passed by this court in the writ appeal and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the civil appeal and also admission of D.W.l regarding title of Bhimappa Satyappa Kamgouda and after his demise plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Accordingly, we answer point No. 3 in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.