Karnataka High Court
Parbhayya S/O Ningayya Guttedar vs Smt. Neelama W/O Guranna on 16 March, 2023
Bench: C M Joshi
-1-
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200077/2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. PARBHAYYA S/O NINGAYYA GUTTEDAR
AGED 40 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHINCHOLI VILLAGE,
TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA.
2. YESHWANTH S/O NINGAPPA GUTTDEAR,
Digitally AGED 47 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
signed by
SOMANATH R/O CHINCHOLI VILLAGE,
PENTAPPA TQ. AFZALPUR,
MITTE
Location: High
DIST. GULBARGA.
Court of
Karnataka
3. MALLAYYA S/O NINGAYYA GUTTEDAR,
AGED 35 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHINCHOLI VILLAGE,
TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA.
4. BABU S/O NINGAYYA GUTTEDAR,
AGED 31 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHINCHOLI VILLAGE,
-2-
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST. GULBARGA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. NEELAMMA W/O GURANNA
AGE 63 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HALYAL, TQ. AFZALPUR,
DIST: GULBARGA-585 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G.S. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE
V/O. DATED 27.08.2020 SERVED WITH COURT NOTICE)
THIS REGUAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2014 PASSED
IN O.S. NO. 161/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT AFZALPUR, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE WITH COSTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
2. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the
judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014 passed in O.S.
No.161/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge Afzalpur,
whereby the suit for declaration and injunction came to be
dismissed with costs.
3. The brief facts germane for filing of this appeal
are that, an agricultural land bearing Survey No.117
measuring 17 acres 15 guntas of Chincholli Village in
Afzalpur Taluk was absolutely owned by one Sri Guranna
S/o. Bheemanna; the plaintiffs contended that the said
property was sold to one Smt. Ambawwa in the year 1973
and her name was entered in the revenue records. She
died on 17.08.2004 leaving behind her only daughter
Kashamma. Husband of Ambawwa had pre-deceased.
After death of Kashamma, plaintiffs have become the
absolute owners of the suit property being the children of
Kashamma. They contended that they are personally
cultivating in the suit schedule property and due to
ignorance of Law they do not take any action to get their
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
names entered in the revenue records. It is alleged that
the defendant got her name entered in the revenue
records and the same was questioned by the plaintiffs
before the Assistant Commissioner as well as before the
Deputy Commissioner in vain. When the defendant
obstructed for the enjoyment of the suit schedule
property, they were constrained to file the suit seeking
declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction.
4. The defendant appeared on issuance of
summons and filed written statement denying the plaint
averments. Inter alia the defendant contended that the
suit property was totally measuring 33 acres and 13
guntas and out of it Guranna had sold 15 acres 13 guntas
in favour of one Shivalingayya in the year 1978. The
remaining 18 acres of land continued in his name and
after his death, it devolved upon the defendant who is the
legally wedded wife of Guranna. The defendant stoutly
denied that Guranna had sold any piece of land to
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
Ambawwa at any point of time. Therefore, she sought for
dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were framed by the trial Court.
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
are the owners and are in possession of
the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove the
alleged interference by the defendant in
respect of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the
reliefs as sought for?
4. What order or decree?"
6. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 were examined as PWs.1 to
4 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs.5 and 6
and Exs.P1 to P26 were marked. Defendant was
examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on her
behalf. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and
proceeded to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs
have approached this Court in this appeal.
8. The appellants contended that the trial Court
has completely failed to see that the name of Smt.
Ambawwa was entered in the records of rights from the
year 1973 to 2007 and the revenue records have a
presumption that in respect of ownership of the property.
They contended that the trial Court has not bestowed its
attention on the documents produced and also to the oral
evidence led before it and therefore, the appeal be allowed
by setting aside the impugned judgment.
9. On issuance of notice, the
respondent/defendant appeared before this Court through
her counsel.
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
10. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the trial Court has not properly
considered the documentary evidence, which have the
presumptive value, which stood undisturbed for long time
and also the trial Court has not considered the weight of
the oral testimony of the witnesses.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the
admissions by PW1 in cross-examination and submitted
that in order to prove the title of the plaintiffs there is
absolutely no reliable documents produced. He submitted
that the best evidence that could have been produced by
the plaintiffs has not been produced and therefore no load
of evidence would suffice to prove the title of the plaintiffs.
12. The contention of the appellants is that they are
absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis
of the sale made by Sri Guranna in favour of Smt.
Ambawwa. Evidently, the said sale was in respect of the
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
property of 18 acres. It is evident that a primary
document for the proof of the title of an immovable
property would be the sale deed. In the absence of sale
deed, the revenue records cannot be a proof of title at any
stretch of imagination.
13. The revenue records come into existence for
the purpose of assessment of the land revenue by the
Government. Since the Government is keeping those
records for the purpose of the assessment of land revenue
in due course of business, they attain evidential value if
they are not objected to, for long time. However, such
inferences from revenue records are rebuttable and they
cannot be placed as the documents of title.
14. When the plaintiffs contend that the suit
schedule property was purchased by Ambawwa from
Guranna, it was incumbent upon them to produce the sale
deed and in the absence of sale deed there cannot be
transfer of the title to Ambawwa. Therefore, when there is
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
no whisper about the sale deed executed by Guranna in
favour of Ambawwa, the contention of the plaintiffs
appears to be nothing but, on froth of mouth.
15. The records reveal that plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are
examined as PWs.1 to 4. The material admissions may be
found in the cross-examination of PW1. In the cross-
examination he virtually admits that he does not have the
sale deed and except the record of rights he does not have
any other documents to prove the title to the property.
He admits that Guranna had sold 15 acres 13 guntas to
one Shivalingayya, therefore when there is no explanation
by PW1 to PW4 for non-production of the sale deed, which
they claim to be title document, it cannot be said that they
have proved title on the suit schedule property.
16. Further, the plaintiffs admit that their appeal to
the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy
Commissioner ended in failure. It appears that the
revenue authorities realized their error in entering the
- 10 -
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
name of Ambawwa in the absence of any document of
title. It was only at the instance of the defendant that
such error was rectified. Therefore, the orders passed by
the revenue authorities also stand in favour of the
defendant. PW.5 and PW6 claim themselves to be
independent witnesses, but in the cross-examination they
admit that they have not seen any document of title and
they have not examined any records regarding the suit
schedule property. Therefore, the evidence of PW5 and
PW6 cannot replace the best evidence that could have
been produced by the plaintiffs. It is trite law that, a
person, who approach the Court seeking title over the
property on the basis of the sale deed, has to produce
such sale deed as it is the only best evidence he could
have produced. When the best evidence that was
available as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs and it is not
produced before the Court, the plaintiffs are not entitled
for the relief claimed. It is evident that there is no
- 11 -
RFA No. 200077 of 2014
explanation offered by the plaintiffs in this regard and as
such I do not find any merit in the appeal.
17. The trial Court has considered the documentary
evidence available on record as well as the ocular
evidence, including the admissions of PW1 and has come
to a proper conclusion. I do not find any reason to
interfere in the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Hence, the appeal fails.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
