Kallappa S/O Timmappa Yadawad vs Kasturi W/O Hanamappa Yadawad
2022 Latest Caselaw 925 Kant

                              1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

             R.S.A.NO.100818 OF 2014(DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

KALLAPPA S/O TIMMAPPA YADAWAD
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

                                                ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SMT. KASTURI
       W/O HANAMAPPA YADAWAD
       AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
       DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

2.     SMT.RAVINDRA
       S/O HANAMAPPA YADAWAD
       AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
       DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

3.     SHIVAPPA
       S/O HANAMAPPA YADAWAD
       AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                 2


        R/O BIDARI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
        DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.

4.      SMT. VIJAYABAI
        W/O SANGAPPA SHIRABUR
        AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
        R/O JAINAPUR, TQ/DIST: BIJAPUR-586101.

                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

(R1 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


        THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

27.06.2014 IN R.A.NO.39/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE JAMAKHANDI, AT: JAMKHANDI AND THE JUDGMENT

AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2013 IN O.S.NO.25/2012 PASSED BY

THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AT: JAMAKHANDI, AND

DECREE THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND

ETC.,


        THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3


                           JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful

plaintiff who has challenged the concurrent judgment and

decree of the Courts below wherein the suit filed by the

appellant/plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and injunction is

dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The appellant claims that he is the owner of the suit land

bearing Sy.No.117/2A measuring 11 acres 11 guntas. The

appellant/plaintiff has contended that the suit land was

originally owned by his father Thimmappa who acquired the

suit land in a family partition which was effected in the year

1934-35. The appellant/plaintiff has further contended that

his father enjoyed the suit schedule property till 1978 and

thereafter in 1978, he relinquished his rights in favour of the

present appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff has further

contended that the defendants have succeeded to the land

bearing Sy.No.117/2B which was earlier allotted to Sangappa

who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff's father. It

is contended that both these lands are adjoining to each other.

The appellant/plaintiff contended that somewhere in 1966-67,

there was a reassignment of Survey number during the

Mysuru Revision Settlement and the present suit land was

renumbered as Sy.No.117/2A. However, in the said

settlement, the extent of the suit land was shown as 10 acres

26 guntas whereas the land owned by the

respondents/defendants was renumbered as Sy.No.117/2B

and the extent was shown as 11 acres 11 guntas. The

mutation also came to be effected in M.E.No.2817. The

appellant/plaintiff claims that his father was a rustic villager

and even the appellant/plaintiff is illiterate and it was only in

2006-07 the respondents/defendants tried to disturbed

appellant/plaintiff peaceful possession over the suit land on

the strength of wrong revenue entries, the appellant/plaintiff

verified the revenue records and found that the measurements

were wrongly entered in the revenue records. The

appellant/plaintiff contended that he approached the revenue

authorities by preferring an appeal before the ADLR which also

came to be rejected and therefore, the present suit.

3. On receipt of summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 3

though appeared through their counsel, did not contest the

proceedings. The appellant/plaintiff in support of his

contention examined himself as PW.1 and produced revenue

records and mutation relating to the suit land.

4. The Trial Court having assessed the oral and

documentary evidence found that the suit land was assigned a

new number in the year 1966 pursuant to Revision Settlement

and based on the actual extent held by the parties, sub-

divisions were carried out and the extents were also reflected.

The Trial Court was of the view that since the

appellant/plaintiff has not succeeded before the Appellate

Authority who has rejected the appeal vide Ex.P-7, the title of

the appellant/plaintiff cannot be decided. The Trial Court was

also of the view that the suit in the present form is also not

maintainable since the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any

documents other than the revenue records to establish his title

to an extent of 11 acres 11 guntas as alleged in the plaint. On

these set of grounds, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and

the same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused

the judgment under challenge.

6. The appellant/plaintiff has specifically contended

that the suit land measures 11 acres 11 guntas. However,

there is a wrong entry in the revenue records pursuant to

Mysuru Revision Settlement. If under the Mysuru Revision

Settlement, the suit land was measured by the competent

authorities and if the sub-divisions were effected based on the

actual possession and enjoyment and if extents are reflected

pursuant to the survey, then the appellant/plaintiff cannot

assert right and title in excess of 10 acres 26 guntas. The

appellant/plaintiff except relying on the revenue records and

mutation, has not produced any title documents which could

have enabled the competent civil Court to independently

assess the title of the appellant/plaintiff. If the

appellant/plaintiff is solely relying on the revenue records and

is contending that prior to revision settlement, his land was

measuring 11 acres 11 guntas, then this Court is of the view

that the claim of the appellant/plaintiff before this Court is not

at all maintainable. Unless the Revision Settlement order is

set aside by the competent authority, question of declaring the

title of the appellant/plaintiff to an extent of 11 acres 11

guntas as claimed in the plaint cannot be acceded to before

the competent civil Court. Dehorse these revenue documents,

the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any other title

documents. Therefore, both the Courts were justified in

dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff by holding

that the same is not maintainable.

7. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the

judgments of both the Courts below. No substantial questions

of law would arise for consideration in the present appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the judgment

and decree of the Courts below and judgment rendered by this

Court would not come in the way of the appellant/plaintiff in

pursuing his remedy, if it is permissible under law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA