JUDGMENT : Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. R.S.A. No.2147/2007 is arising from the judgments and decrees in O.S. No.102/1984 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hosadurga and R.A. No.135/2001 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere. 2. R.S.A. No.2141/2007 is arising from the judgments and decrees in O.S. No.528/1989 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hosadurga and R.A. No.135/2001 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere. 3. Both suits were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment. The plaintiff in O.S. No.102/1984 who is also defendant No.1 in O.S. No.528/1989 has filed R.A. No.135/2001 and the appeal is dismissed. Hence, these two second appeals are filed. 4. The plaintiff in O.S. No.102/1984 who is the defendant No.1 in O.S. No.528/1989 is referred to as the appellant in this case. The contesting defendants in O.S. No.102/1984 who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.528/1989 are referred to as respondents. 5. The appellant filed a suit in respect of property bearing Survey No.106/2, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in Govinakalla village, Taluk Hosadurga. The suit in O.S. No.102/1984 is essentially filed on the premise that the plaintiff has acquired the title and possession over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1948. Appellant claims that he purchased the property from one Devaragonda Mariyappa. It is further stated that the respondents are interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly, sought relief of declaration of title and injunction. 6. During the pendency of the suit, an application is filed to amend the plaint and the appellant sought possession of 25 guntas on the premise that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. 7. The respondents who filed O.S. No.528/1989 claimed title over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 03.03.1981. The respondents traced the title to the property from the original sale deed dated 25.01.1934 executed by D. Mariyappa, referred to above. 8. It is further stated by the respondents that Mariyappa sold the property bearing survey No.106/1 measuring 3 acre 15 guntas and 106/2 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas to Mudimallanaika and Mudimallanaika in the year 1936 sold the property to Govindappa and Govindappa has sold the suit property to P.S. Thimmaiah Naidu on 03.03.1981. The respondents also claimed adverse possession in the alternative. 9. The respondents also claimed adverse possession in the alternative. 9. Both the Courts concluded that the plea of adverse possession is not established. The Courts also concluded that the appellants claim to the title over the property on the basis of registered sale deed of 1948 is not established. The Courts also concluded that on 21.01.1934, original vendor Mariyappa has sold his entire property to Mudimallanaika and Mudimallanaika in the year 1936 has sold the property to Govindappa and Govindappa sold the suit property to P.S. Thimmaiah Naidu. Thus, came to the conclusion that appellant who claims to have purchased the property under the sale deed of 1948 has not acquired any title over the property. Consequently, O.S. No.102/1984 is dismissed and O.S. No.528/1989 is also dismissed. 10. As already noticed above, both suits clubbed together and disposed of by common judgment, there are two separate decrees. The law requires the person to file two separate appeals against two separate decrees in case if he is aggrieved. The plaintiff in O.S. No.102/1984 has filed only one appeal in R.A. No.135/2001. Not withstanding this technical objection, the appeals are heard on merits for admission. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there is a registered sale deed in the name of the appellant in the year 1948 and when the sale deed was executed, the name of the vendor Muniyappa was appearing in the property records and based on the sale deed, he came in possession of the property and enjoyed the property. Since there was obstruction by the respondents, he was constrained to file a suit and despite production of original sale deed of 1948, both Courts committed an error in holding that the appellant is not the owner of the property. 12. It is his further submission that sale deed of 1934 is not a sale deed in reality, but it is only a mortgage and had it been a genuine sale deed, there would have been change in the entry in the property records and entries in the property records are not changed and even in 1948, the name of Muniyappa was found in the property records and there was a valid execution of the sale deed by Muniyappa in favour of appellant. 13. 13. Thus, it is urged that both the Courts erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant and decreeing the suit of the respondents. It is his further submission that respondents who have raised the contention of adverse possession have not established the plea of adverse possession. The trial Court as well as Appellate Court have given a finding that adverse possession is not established and once adverse possession is not established, the Court ought to have decreed the suit of the appellants, is the submission. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that both Courts have rightly concluded that the appellant has not acquired any title and possession over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed of 1948. It is their contention that in the year 1934, Muniyappa sold entire property to Mudimallanaika and Mudimallanaika in turn, has sold the entire property to Govindappa and respondents have purchased the property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas from Govindappa and suit is filed only in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas and Courts have rightly concluded that the respondents have acquired title over the property under the registered sale deed of 1981. 15. It is further submitted that the plea of adverse possession is taken as an alternative defence and merely because the respondents took a contention relating to adverse possession it does not mean that their contention based on the title deed has to be rejected. 16. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 17. Both the Courts have concluded that execution of sale deed date 25.01.1934 is not disputed. The respondents have produced the certified copy of the sale deed of 1934 as well as the certified copy of sale deed of 1936. Original sale deed is not produced. However, the appellant would contend that the sale deed of 1934 is not a sale deed in reality but it is only a mortgage deed. Looking at the defence of the contention of the appellant, it is very much apparent that the dispute is not relating to the execution, but is relating to the nature of the transaction. However, the appellant would contend that the sale deed of 1934 is not a sale deed in reality but it is only a mortgage deed. Looking at the defence of the contention of the appellant, it is very much apparent that the dispute is not relating to the execution, but is relating to the nature of the transaction. This being position, non production of the original sale deed of 1934 does not come in the way of considering the claim of the respondents which is based on the sale deed of 1981 and original sale deed of 1981 is produced. 18. Since the appellants have taken up a contention that sale deed dated 25.01.1934 is not a sale deed, it is a mortgage deed. It is for the appellant to substantiate the said contention which is contrary to the recital in the sale deed. To substantiate this contention, the appellant has not examined the vendor of the sale deed dated 25.01.1934 or any of the persons claiming under him or any of the witnesses to the said sale deed or he has not made an attempt to examine the scribe to the said sale deed. 19. Even to establish the contention that he is in possession, the appellant has not led evidence of any witnesses. On the other hand, the respondents have led evidence of independent witnesses namely Timmappa and Chikkappa. 20. Considering the evidence on record, both the Court have concluded that the execution of sale deed dated 25.01.1934 is true and there is nothing to believe that the sale deed dated 25.01.1934 is a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. This being the position, the Court has to take a view that Muniyappa has sold entire property in 1934 and he was not left with any property. Thus, the sale deed dated 06.05.1948 in the name of appellant does not confer any title and possession in favour of the appellant. This finding recorded by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is based on acceptable materials on record. 21. Asfar as the contention of the respondents that they have perfected the title over the property by way of adverse possession, it is to be noticed that the said contention is not established, because respondents have purchased the property in the year 1981 under a registered sale deed. 21. Asfar as the contention of the respondents that they have perfected the title over the property by way of adverse possession, it is to be noticed that the said contention is not established, because respondents have purchased the property in the year 1981 under a registered sale deed. Having purchased the property under a registered sale deed from a lawful owner, it was not necessary for them to raise a plea of adverse possession. And evidence is also not led on the said plea. This being the position, the negative finding on the plea of adverse possession raised by the respondents does not come in the way of respondents establishing their title based on the registered sale deed of 1981. 22. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 23. No substantial question of law would arise and accordingly, appeals are dismissed. 24. In view of disposal of the appeals, I.A. 2/2025 in R.S.A. No.2141/2007 for stay, does not survive for consideration.