Karnataka High Court
Andappa S/O Khandappa Madar vs Ningappa S/O Adiveppa Madar on 8 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100902 OF 2015
(DEC/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1. ANDAPPA S/O KHANDAPPA MADAR
AGE:62 YEARS,OCC:AGRL,
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON,
DIST:GADAG-582101
2. YAMANOORAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HALAGI
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
3. IRAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HALAGI
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
4. BHARAMAVVA W/O BHARAMAPPA MADAR @ BHOOMAD
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H N GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NINGAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA MADAR
AGE:67 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
-2-
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
2. NARAYANAPPA S/O NEMAPPA RATHOD
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:GAJENDRAGAD, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
DURGAPPA S/O MIKAVVA MADAR
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
SINCE DECEASED REP. THROUGH LRS.
MUDAKAPPA S/O DURGAPPA MADAR
3.
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
4. MUKAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA MADAR
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
5. SHARANAPPA S/O MUKAPPA MADAR
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
6. KARIYAPPA S/O MUKAPPA MADAR
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
7. SIDDAPPA S/O YALLAPPA MADAR
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
8. YAMANOORAPPA S/O KALAKAPPA MADAR
AGE:61 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
DURGAVVA W/O FAKIRAPPA MADAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
KALAKAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA MADAR
9. AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
-3-
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
10. YALLAPPA S/O DURGAPPA MADAR
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
11. CHANDRAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA MADAR
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
12. KALAKAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA MADAR
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
13. HANAMAPPA S/O MARIYAPPA MADAR
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
CHANDRAPPA S/O MUKAPPA MADAR
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS
BASAVVA W/O CHANDRAPPA MADAR
14. AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
15. MUTTAPPA S/O CHADRAPPA MADAR
AGE:19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
16. SHOBHA D/O CHANDRAPPA MADAR
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
R/O:LAKKALAKATTI
TQ:RON, DIST:GADAG-582101
17. MASANAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA MADAR
AGE:64 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
18. KALAKAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA MADAR @ BHOOMAD
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
-4-
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
19. MUKAPPA S/O NEELAPPA MADAR
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
20. KANAKAPPA S/O DURGAPPA MADAR
AGE:67 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
21. DURGAVVA W/O DURGAPPA MADAR
AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
22. YALLAVVA D/O MUKAPPA MADAR
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRL
R/O:RAJUR, TQ:RON
DIST:GADAG-582101
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PADMAJA S. TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3, R6, R8, R9 AND R17 IS DISPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R10, R11, R15 AND R18 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
NOTICE TO R4, R5, R7, R12, R13, R14, R16, R19, R20, R21 AND R22
ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.34/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RON,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 24.10.2013 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.93/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RON, DISMISSING THE SUIT
FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
-5-
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs, challenging
the Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2015 in
R.A.No.34/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ron,
confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24.10.2013 on
the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Ron,
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this
revision petition are referred to as per their ranking before
the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit
schedule property was granted to the predecessor of the
plaintiffs and the defendants and the plaintiffs are in
possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further stated
in the plaint that, there was a dispute between the
plaintiffs and defendants, claiming rights over the property
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
and as such, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.93/2013 on the file
of the trial Court, seeking relief of declaration and
permanent injunction.
4. On service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and have not chosen to file written statement.
5. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs have
examined 03 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and produced
09 documents and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.9. The defendants have not adduced any evidence
before the trial Court. The trial Court after considering the
material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated
24.10.2013, dismissed the suit and being aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.34/2014 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Ron and the said
appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate
Court, after considering the material on record by
Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2015 dismissed the
appeal and as such, confirmed the Judgment and Decree
passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.93/2013. Feeling
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this
Regular Second Appeal.
6. I have heard Sri. H.N.Gularaddy, learned
counsel for the appellants and Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. Sri. H.N.Gularaddy, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants argued that, the properties in question
were granted by the Government to the predecessor of the
plaintiffs and the defendants on 26.11.1932 and therefore,
the plaintiffs and the defendants have right over the suit
schedule property. Therefore, he contended that, both the
Courts below have not properly appreciated the said
aspect of the matter and accordingly, sought for
interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Smt. Padmaja S. Tadapatri, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, sought
to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by
both the Courts below.
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
9. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully
examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellants was that, the land was granted to the
predecessors of the plaintiffs in the year 1932, however,
undisputedly, the said Grant Certificate was not produced
before the Court below.
10. It is also forthcoming from the impugned
Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court that, the
plaintiffs have not pleaded in their plaint with regard to
the beneficiary or grantee of the land by the Government.
Except relying upon the mutation and other revenue
records, no title deeds have been produced by the
plaintiffs. Undoubtedly, the suit is filed for declaratory
relief and the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their
right over the suit schedule property by producing cogent
documentary evidence, as per Section 101 of the Evidence
Act. Since no parent document/title deeds are produced by
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
the plaintiffs, I am of the view that, both the Courts below
have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. In this
regard, the law declared by this Court in the case of
Krishna Vs. Sanjeev, reported in ILR 2003 Kar. 3716,
wherein, this Court has held that, if a party relies on
document in addition to oral evidence, he is expected to
file the said documents either along with the pleadings or
in the evidence to prove his title over the properties in
question and in the absence of the same, as the plaintiffs
fail to produce the title deeds like grant certificate, I do
not find any acceptable ground to interfere with the
impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts
below.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage itself, as the appellants have not made
out a case for framing of the substantial question of law,
as required under Section 100 of CPC.
- 10 -
RSA No. 100902 of 2015
12. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal,
pending application i.e. I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for
consideration, and accordingly the same is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
