Karnataka High Court
Manjappa vs U H Lakshman on 5 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
RSA No. 1457 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
MANJAPPA,
S/O. DODDABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
CHIKKALINGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAVAGAL HOBLI,
ARSIKERE TQ: 573 125
HASSAN DISTRICT
NOTE: NOT CLAIMED
SENIOR CITIZENSHIP
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: MAHESH .A.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. U.H. LAKSHMAN,
PAVITHRA N S/O. HANUMANTHAIAH,
Location: high MAJOR,
court of
karnataka
2. NINGAMMA,
W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
MAJOR,
3. VENKATESHMURTHY,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAIAH,
MAJOR,
4. CHANDRAMMA,
W/O GOPAL,
MAJOR,
5. MEENAKSHI,
W/O. PANDURANGA,
MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
RSA No. 1457 of 2016
6. JAYALAKSHMI,
W/O. RAVISHANKAR
MAJOR,
1 TO 6 RESIDING AT
UNDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAVAGAL HOBLI,
ARSIKERE TQ: 573 125.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
7. DASAPPA,
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
MAJOR,
8. GOWRAMMA,
W/O. DASAPPA,
MAJOR,
7-8 RESIDING AT
KANCHIGANALU VILLAGE - 577 213,
UBRANI HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: VIDYA .S., AND
SRI: KARTHIK .P.M., ADVOCATES FOR R-1, 2, 4 & 6
R-3, 5, 7 & 8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2016 PASSED IN RA
NO.16/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
ARSIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2015 PASSED IN OS
NO.301/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., ARASIKERE.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
RSA No. 1457 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful defendant No.3 assailing the concurrent
judgment of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiffs' suit
seeking relief of declaration and title and for consequential
relief of injunction is decreed by both the Courts.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking
relief of declaration of title and for injunction. The subject
matter of the suit is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.67,
measuring 3 acres 2 guntas. It is the specific case of the
plaintiffs that the Government vide order dated
01.01.1948 granted the suit land in favour of late
Hanumanthaiah who is the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs contended that after demise of the original
grantee, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit schedule
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
property. The plaintiffs contended that they are the joint
family members and they are in possession of the suit
schedule property. The present suit is filed alleging that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with the revenue
officials, got their names mutated in the revenue records
in respect of suit schedule property and based on the
entries in the revenue records, defendant Nos.1 and 2
have alienated the suit schedule property in favour of
defendant No.3. Hence, the present suit is filed.
4. Defendants on receipt of summons, tendered
appearance and filed written statement separately.
Defendant No.1 while denying the averments made in the
plaint claimed that he is in possession of the suit schedule
property since 1974 and that he has sold the suit schedule
property in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1
further claimed that defendant No.3 is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property as an absolute
owner. Defendant No.1 also contended that plaintiff No.1
has given consent to change khatha in favour of defendant
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 also contended that
they have perfected their title by way of adverse
possession and they are in possession of the suit schedule
property for morethan 25 years.
5. Defendant No.3 who is the purchaser, contested
the proceedings by filing written statement. Defendant
No.3 disputed plaintiffs' title over the suit schedule
property.
6. The plaintiffs and the defendants to
substantiate their respective claims, let in oral and
documentary evidence. The trial Court while answering
issue No.1 in the affirmative, took cognizance of the stand
taken by the defendants during trial who have admitted
that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of
late Hanumanthaiah. Referring to this admission, the trial
Court was of the view that there is no dispute in respect of
plaintiffs' title over the suit schedule property. While
answering issue No.2 in the affirmative, the trial Court has
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
taken cognizance of Exs.P1 to P17. Referring to these
documents, the trial Court was of the view that the
plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their lawful possession
over the suit schedule property. While answering issue
No.3 in the negative, the trial Court held that defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate their contention
that they have perfected their title by way of adverse
possession. The trial Court referring to the evidence let in
by the plaintiffs coupled with the admission tendered by
defendant Nos.1 and 2 who have admitted that plaintiffs'
ancestor was granted the suit land in question, proceeded
to decree the suit, thereby, declaring the plaintiffs as
absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule
property.
7. Defendant No.3 feeling aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the trial Court, preferred an
appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court as a final fact finding Authority, has independently
assessed the oral and the documentary evidence. The
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
Appellate Court having taken cognizance of the defence
set up by defendant Nos.1 and 2, also recorded a
categorical finding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not
acquired any title. While placing reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in KLJ 2013
(4) page 327, the Appellate Court held that the defendants
assert title based on the revenue records. On re-assessing
the evidence on record, the Appellate Court was also of
the view that the plaintiffs have succeeded in
substantiating that suit land is their ancestral property and
defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no saleable title and therefore,
the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 would not create
any right and title in favour of defendant No.3.
Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed. These
concurrent findings are under challenge by defendant No.3
who claims to be the purchaser.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for defendant
No.3/appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs/respondents. I have given my anxious
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
consideration to the concurrent findings recorded by both
the Courts below.
9. On examining the observations and the
conclusions recorded by both the Courts, it clearly reveals
that defendant No.1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that
Government has granted the suit land in favour of
Hanumanthaiah. The grantee- Hanumanthaiah is the
father of the plaintiffs herein. If Hanumanthaiah's title is
not in dispute, a short question that would arise for
consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether
defendant Nos.1 and 2 based on the revenue entries, had
saleable title, which they could have conveyed in favour of
defendant No.3 by executing the sale deed. My answer is
emphatically 'No'. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no valid
right and title which they were capable of passing on in
favour of defendant No.3, defendant No.3 will not acquire
any right and title in respect of the suit schedule property.
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
10. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to
substantiate their right and title over the suit land. Their
defence is found in two folds. Firstly, defendant Nos.1 and
2 claim that plaintiffs have consented for change of khatha
and based on their consent, the names of defendant No.1
and 2 were mutated in the revenue records. The Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments held
that mere mutation in the revenue records will not in itself
confer title in favour of a person whose name is mutated
in the revenue records. Therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 2
have failed to substantiate that they acquired title based
on the mutation.
11. The second limb of defence is that defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have perfected their title by way of adverse
possession. Both the Courts referring to the pleadings in
the written statement and the evidence let in by the
defendants, have recorded a categorical finding that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to substantiate that
they have perfected their title by way of adverse
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
possession. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to
substantiate their right and title, defendant No.3 on the
strength of the sale deed can neither question plaintiffs'
title nor can assert his title over the suit schedule
property.
12. It is a settled proposition of law that possession
follows title. The plaintiffs are held to be the absolute
owners. In the absence of any clinching rebuttal evidence
to demonstrate that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in
possession over the suit schedule property, both the
Courts were justified in holding that the plaintiffs are in
lawful possession of the suit schedule property as absolute
owners.
13. No substantial question of law would arise for
consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of
merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43839
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PN
