JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed under Sec. 100 of CPC, by plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in RA No.305/2011 dtd. 10/11/2011 whereby the learned District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS no.401/2005. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title of 1 acre 20 guntas in R.S.No.285/2 situated at Kallehol village, Belgaum Taluka and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Alternatively, the plaintiffs have also sought delivery of possession of suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties are owned by Shattu Neelu Devarmani and he sold the same to one Parashuram Bavaku Vetal under registered sale deed dtd. 23/9/1963. Ever since the date of sale, Parashuram was in possession of the suit schedule property and after his death, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also alleged that after the death of Shattu Neelu Devarmani the names of defendant nos.1 to 5 came to be mutated in the revenue records and suit land is yet to be converted in to Raitawa and the deceased Shattu Neelu Devarmani has taken the responsibility of converting into Raitawa. It is alleged that one week before filing of the suit, defendant nos.1 to 5 interfered in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by plaintiff by ploughing the suit land with bullocks and when the plaintiffs disclose the sale by their ancestors, the defendants disputed the sale and therefore, they filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction and alternatively, sought for possession of the suit schedule property. 4. Defendant no.5 has appeared and filed his written statements denying the execution of sale deed in the year 1969 in favour of Parashuram. It is asserted that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by defendants predecessors in title by Neelu Shetteppa Mahar and after his death on 26/12/1967, the property devolved on Shattu Neelu Devarmani and M.E.No.913 dtd. 3/3/1968 was certified. It is asserted that the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by defendants predecessors in title by Neelu Shetteppa Mahar and after his death on 26/12/1967, the property devolved on Shattu Neelu Devarmani and M.E.No.913 dtd. 3/3/1968 was certified. It is contended that Shattu had no legal competency to sell the suit property in favour of Parashuram and the possession was never parted with in favour of Parashuram. It is asserted that defendants have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of suit schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and after the death of Shattu, the name of defendant nos.1 to 5. came to mutated in the revenue records and they are in actual possession and cultivation since time immemorial. He contended that suit for declaration is barred by law of limitation. It is also asserted that the suit land is Maharki inam land and not regranted and converted into Raitawa and sale transaction is hit by the provisions of Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 and they have also sought for declaration of their title by adverse possession. 5. The Trial Court on the basis of the rival pleadings has framed the following issues:- ISSUES "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are owners in possession of suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by Shattu, dtd. 23/9/1969? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants obstructed for their enjoyment of suit property? 3. Whether the defendants No.1 to 5 prove that they are in possession of suit property for more than 12 years uninterruptedly, openly and peacefully within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and thereby have perfected their title by adverse possession? 4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit? 5. Whether the valuation of suit and court fee paid is proper? 6. To what relief the parties are entitled to? 7. What decree or order?" 6. Plaintiff no.2 got examined as PW1 and three witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 4 and plaintiffs placed reliance on 6 documents marked at Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.5 got examined as DW1 and one witness was examined as DW2 and they placed reliance on 26 documents marked at Exs.D1 to D26. 7. 7. What decree or order?" 6. Plaintiff no.2 got examined as PW1 and three witnesses were examined as PWs.2 to 4 and plaintiffs placed reliance on 6 documents marked at Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.5 got examined as DW1 and one witness was examined as DW2 and they placed reliance on 26 documents marked at Exs.D1 to D26. 7. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the trial Court has answered issue nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 in the affirmative while issue no.3 was answered in the negative and as such, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed RA no.305/2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Belgaum, and the learned District Judge after re-appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has allowed the regular appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by this divergent finding, this appeal is filed. 9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent. Perused records. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the title of the plaintiffs is based on the sale deed and sale deed itself is proved as original sale deed is produced and it is a document of 30 years old having presumptive value and the presumption is not rebutted by the defendants. He would also contend that the evidence of witnesses disclose that the plaintiffs' possession and the First Appellate Court upheld the finding regarding the title of the plaintiffs, but, has erroneously held that defendants proved their title by adverse possession. It is asserted that there is no specific pleading regarding adverse possession and the possession should be open, hostile to the knowledge of owner and continuous which is not forthcoming in the instant case. The date of possession becoming hostile is also not pleaded and he would contend that the provisions of PTCL Act is not applicable. Hence, he would contend that the learned District Judge has committed an error in reversing the finding and hence, sought for allowing the appeal. 11. The date of possession becoming hostile is also not pleaded and he would contend that the provisions of PTCL Act is not applicable. Hence, he would contend that the learned District Judge has committed an error in reversing the finding and hence, sought for allowing the appeal. 11. This Court while admitting the appeal on 25/11/2014 has framed the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the judgment of the first Appellate Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan ( AIR 2009 SC 103 )? 12. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is undisputed fact that the suit schedule property is a Maharki land granted in favour of the father of Shattu i.e. Neelu. It is also admitted that suit property was granted in favour of the ancestors of defendants, but, it is not converted into Raitawa. 13. The total extent of land is 1 acre 22 guntas. The plaintiffs are placing reliance on the original sale deed produced at Ex.P3 which is alleged to be executed by Shattu Neelu Devarmani. Admittedly, the said document is a 30 years old document and has got presumptive value unless contrary is proved. The First Appellate Court appreciating all these aspects held that there is a sale deed duly executed. But, the issue is regarding transfer of title which is subject to the provisions of PTCL Act. 14. But, at the same time, it is also important to note here that in Ex.P1, RTC of the land for the years 2003 and 2004, the names of defendants are found in column no.9 of Kabjedars. Further, the nature of acquisition is shown in column no.10 as inheritance. Even in the coloumn 12(2), the name of Mahar Kallappa Shattu and others is shown as cultivators. Plaintiffs name does not appear in RTC. Ex.P2 is the mutation extract in respect of M.E no.913 and the after the death of Neelu Shettappa Mahar, the name of Shattu is entered as legal heir, which is certified on 5/4/1968. The record of rights produced by the defendants clearly disclose that the names of the defendants are appearing to the suit schedule property all along. Plaintiff no.2 is examined as PW1. In the cross examination, PW1 has admitted that suit land was granted to the ancestors defendants and it was later on inherited by Shattappa. The record of rights produced by the defendants clearly disclose that the names of the defendants are appearing to the suit schedule property all along. Plaintiff no.2 is examined as PW1. In the cross examination, PW1 has admitted that suit land was granted to the ancestors defendants and it was later on inherited by Shattappa. He further specifically admits that after the death of Shettappa, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. He also admits that he did not raise any objection for mutating the names of defendants to the suit schedule property and admits that it is not yet converted in to Raitawa and it is regranted in favour of the defendants. He has further admitted that the father of defendant Shattu had raised loan on the suit schedule property by keeping it as a security and encumbrance was made in the revenue records and he has also not raised any objection regarding this aspect. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 does not assist the plaintiffs in any way by proving the title or possession in view of the specific admission given by PW1 regarding possession of the defendants. Since the plaintiffs are seeking alternative relief of possession which clearly gives an indication that they are not sure regarding even their possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property. 15. Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act draws presumption regarding entries in the revenue records. These entries are in favour of the defendants all along and they are long standing entries. Again these entries are supported by the admission given by PW1 regarding possession of plaintiff no.1. After alleged sale deed, neither plaintiffs nor father Parusharam have ever applied for mutating their names to the suit schedule property. The records also disclose that the defendants are paying the land revenue in respect of the suit schedule property which is evident from Ex.D11 to D26. As observed above, defendants have all along enjoyed the property as absolute owners and raised loan on the suit schedule property and are enjoying the said property to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Further, the relief of declaration is also barred by law of limitation. The defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property openly to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and are paying the tax and plaintiffs never asserted the title over the suit schedule property. Further, the relief of declaration is also barred by law of limitation. The defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property openly to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and are paying the tax and plaintiffs never asserted the title over the suit schedule property. All along the entries were in the names of defendants and these entries were never challenged. The plaintiffs have never paid the land revenue at any point of time. 16. The possession as well as animus possidendi are essential conditions for establishing the hostile title. In the instant case, the defendants have specifically pleaded this aspect and proved and even the same has been admitted by PW1. The plaintiffs never challenged the revenue entries in the name of defendants at any point of time and defendants all along enjoyed the suit schedule property as a owners. 17. It is also evident from Exs.D7 and D8 that defendants have obtained loan on the suit schedule property by offering it as a security and it has been also mortgaged by Bharma Shattu Devaramani, i.e. defendant no.3 and all along the defendants have enjoyed the suit property as their own property. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has failed to appreciate any of these aspects and the First Appellate Court has in detail appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and has rightly observed that the defendants have perfected their title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. The sale deed is dtd. 23/9/1969 in favour of Parashuram and the records and admission of PW1 disclose that the possession was never handed over to Parashuram. The Shattu and the defendants continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property inspite of execution of the sale deed. The suit for possession is not filed within 12 years from the date of sale deed Ex.P3 and the suit itself is filed in the year 2005 and as such, the suit is also clearly hit by the principles of law of limitation. The First Appellate Court has considered all these aspects and has rightly dismissed the suit of the appeal. No illegality or infirmity is forthcoming in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has considered all these aspects and has rightly dismissed the suit of the appeal. No illegality or infirmity is forthcoming in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. No material evidence is placed to show that the judgment and decree of First Appellate Court is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan ( AIR 2009 SC 103 )? 18. Under such circumstances, question of interference with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court does not arise at all. Considering all these aspects, the substantial question is answered in the negative and as such the appeal being devoid of any merits needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.