Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Iqbal S/O Omar Hussain vs Sri. Pratapreddy @ Prakashreddy S/O ... on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873
RSA No. 200182 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200182 OF 2014
(DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED IQBAL
S/O OMAR HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT MADDIPET, RAICHUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584129
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J.AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. PRATAPREDDY @ PRAKASHREDDY,
S/O THIPPAREDDY,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
NIJAMUDDIN R/AT H.NO.5-3-5, NETAJI NAGAR,
JAMKHANDI
HANUMAN TALKIES ROAD, RAICHUR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DIST. RAICHUR-584129.
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.03.2014 PASSED IN
RA.NO.51/2011 BY THE PRINCIPAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAICHUR AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
14.06.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.253/2006 BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I AT RAICHUR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873
RSA No. 200182 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.11.2025 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned second appeal is by the plaintiff assailing the divergent findings of the Courts below. Though the plaintiff's suit was decreed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.253/2006 declaring plaintiff as absolute owner and consequently, directing the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property, the appellate Court in R.A.No.51/2011 has allowed the appeal and the findings are reversed consequently, the suit is dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under: -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR Plaintiff filed a suit asserting that the disputed property was originally owned by his father namely, late Omar Hussain and that his father during his lifetime, did not get his name mutated to the municipal records. The plaintiff therefore asserted that it is an ancestral property which was originally inherited from his grandfather-Chanda Hussain and the property was leased to the defendant on a rental basis for temporary period. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to pay the rent despite the repeated demands. The plaintiff also alleged that in 1994, suddenly, the defendant's name was reflected in the khata extract by deleting the plaintiff's father's name which was based on a false affidavit tendered by defendant's mother. Hence, the present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and possession.
4. In response to the suit summons, the defendant entered appearance and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant on the contrary is specifically pleaded that there is no cause of action to file the present suit. The defendant also explicitly pleaded that -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR plaintiff's father's title was seriously disputed before the CMC authorities and the CMC through its concerned authority secured a spot inspection and submitted a report indicating that the defendant's mother and other persons are in possession from the last 25 years. The application filed by the plaintiff's father to get his name mutated was rejected and the parties were relegated to the Civil Court. Therefore, the defendant asserted that present suit is barred by limitation.
5. Based on rival conditions, the Trial Court framed issues and additional issues. On additional issue No.3 in regard to plea of limitation raised by the defendant, the Trial Court on examining oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit and answered additional issue No.3 in the negative.
6. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding holding that the suit is barred by limitation since the plaintiff and his predecessor were aware of the defendant's claim as early as in 1994.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR
7. This Court, vide order dated 21.07.2016 framed the following substantial questions of law:
i. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in insisting for title deeds in the case of devolution of rights to the parties by way of succession?
ii. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that, the knowledge of notice through the publication of newspaper which is not in the language known to the plaintiff?
iii. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in attributing the knowledge of the mutation of suit property to the plaintiff in the year 1994, when the plaintiff did not have the knowledge of the mutation of the suit property due to fraud?
iv. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in relying on the illegal mutation, which recognized the adverse possession over the suit property?
v. Whether the mutation can be ordered by the local body in favour of a person, who has not filed any application for mutation?-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR vi. Whether the declaration of title can be denied when the defendant denies her own title to the suit property and maintain silence over the ownership of the suit property?
Finding on Substantial Question Nos.i to vi
8. It would be apposite for this Court to refer to Ex.D9, the relevant portion is extracted which reads as under:
"Para 12- Three objection petitions are received for the proposed mutation. Out of them two objections are withdrawn.
A Notice was issued to the objection petitioners to produce ownership documents but no response is received from Sri. Arvind O.P. However a final notice may be issued to him to produce documentary evidences in support of his objection petition.
Sd/- 22/4 Tax Supdt., Para 23:- Both the parties may be informed to seek reddressal of their grievances in the Court of Law as opined by the Standing Counsel.
Sd/- 15/5 Tax. Supdt."-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR
9. On closer examination of the rebuttal evidence led in by the defendant, more particularly, Ex.D9, it is forthcoming that the defendant's mother-Siddamma contested the application filed by the plaintiff's father -Omar Hussain seeking mutation to the property extract. In her objection, she has stated that she is residing in the house since three generations and during this period, no person has claimed title and ownership over the suit schedule property. In the objections, she has also asserted that she has perfected her title by adverse possession. These objections were entertained by the CMC and an order was passed rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff's father. Having rejected the plaintiff's father's request to mutate, the defendant's mother's name was duly reflected in the property extract and that continued till filing of the suit. The records therefore disclose that the defendant's mother made a public claim to ownership through a paper publication on 19.09.1994 and the CMC issued a corresponding public notice on 22.09.1994. The plaintiff's father being aware of the said notice submitted an application for mutation which -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR was objected by the defendants' mother, asserting that she had perfected her title by adverse possession. The CMC, after due consideration, rejected plaintiff's father's application and mutated the name of defendant's mother on 17.12.1994. This order is never challenged until present suit in 2006.
10. It is now well settled under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for suit for possession based on title is 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has explained that adverse possession is a negative and hostile form of possession, which must be open, continuous and hostile to the true owner. The burden is squarely on the person asserting adverse possession to prove that his possession was actual, open and continuous.
11. In mutation proceedings before the local authority i.e., CMC, the plaintiff's father's application requesting to mutate the name is out rightly rejected by the authority. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR This rejection is in the year 1994. Thus, plaintiff and his predecessor were put on notice of the hostile claim as early as in 1994. In fact, objections and affidavit tendered by defendant's mother asserts possession prior to 1994 proceedings. She has claimed that they are in possession since 60 years and there are no rival claims to the suit property.
12. From the rebuttal evidence led in by the defendant, the defendant has succeeded in demonstrating that his mother was in settled possession adverse to the plaintiff's title, if any, prior to 1994. In view of cogent and clinching rebuttal evidence led in by the defendant, the Trial Court unnecessarily ventured into deciding the title of the plaintiff. The core issue that was required to be addressed and adverted to was as to whether plaintiff's right to seek declaration and consequentially possession is hit by Section 27 of the Limitation Act conjointly read with Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR
13. Since the rebuttal evidence clearly established that the defendant's mother did dispute the plaintiff's title way back in the year 1994 in mutation proceedings and asserted possession much prior to 1994, plaintiff's father ought to have filed suit seeking declaration of title within three years. The consequential relief of possession squarely depends upon establishment of plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff's father did not seek declaration within three years, the present suit is clearly hit by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, since the defendant has succeeded in substantiating that his mother has succeeded in perfecting her title, the relief of possession is also clearly hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
14. Even if plaintiff succeeds in establishing his right by way of inheritance through his grandfather- Chanda Hussain, the fact that possession was lost much prior to 1994 and plea of adverse possession was raised for the first time in 1994 though in mutation proceedings, there is clear inaction on the part of plaintiff's father in instituting proper
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR proceedings seeking redressal of his rights over the suit schedule property.
15. All these crucial aspects are not at all dealt by the Trial Court. Therefore, finding recorded by the Trial Court on additional issue No.3 suffers from perversity and does not advert to the mandate provided under Section 27 read with Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The Trial Court has also not adverted to Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Since the order of the CMC vide Ex.D9 has in fact relegated the parties to approach the Civil Court. This order is of the year 1994. While plaintiff who is the son has made a feeble attempt by instituting a suit in 2006.
16. Therefore, firstly there is no cause of action to institute the present suit. Secondly, the suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by limitation. The rebuttal evidence led in by the defendant clearly establishes that his mother has perfected her title by way of adverse possession. Therefore, the substantial questions of law Nos.(i) and (vi)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6873 RSA No. 200182 of 2014 HC-KAR do not survive for consideration. Substantial questions of law Nos.(ii) to (v) are answered in affirmative.
17. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1 CT:SI