Karnataka High Court
Sri N Srinivasappa vs Smt Lakshmakka on 25 September, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1285 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N. SRINIVASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
R/O. MUDAVADI VILLAGE
HOLUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT LAKSHMAKKA
W/O LATE BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 2. SRI B. GOPALAPPA
Location: HIGH S/O LATE BYRAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
3. SRI VENU
S/O LATE BYARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDENT OF MUDAVADI VILLAGE
HOLURU HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563 101.
4. MANJULA
D/O LATE BYRAPPA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
W/O PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
KADUDEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
SRINIVASPUR TALUK-563135.
5. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. SRI VEERABHADRA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
7. SMT. RENUKAMMA
D/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
8. SRI VISHVANATHA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDENT NOS.5 TO 8 ARE
MUDUVADI VILLAGE
HOLURU HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563 101.
9. SRI CHIKKAHANUMAPPA
S/O LATE GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
10. SRI G. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.9 AND 10 ARE
RESIDING AT MUDUVADI VILLAGE
HOLURU HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT DECREE DTD: 19.02.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.133/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
ICVIL JUDE AND JMFC, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 15.04.2016
PASSED IN O.S.NO.112/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission.
I have heard the counsel for the appellant.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the appellant
before this Court that he is the absolute owner in possession
and enjoyment of the suit land. Sri.Huchappa is the propositor
of the family having two sons namely Sri.Byrappa and
Sri.Chokkappa. Sri.Chokkappa passed away without any issues.
Sri.Byrappa passed away leaving behind his only son namely
Sri.Narayanappa. Sri.Narayanappa also passed away leaving
behind two sons namely Sri.Munivenkatappa and
Sri.N.Srinivasappa (plaintiff). Originally suit land belongs to
Sri.Byrappa and Sri.Chokkappa. After the death of Sri.Byrappa
and Sri.Chokkappa, Sri.Narayanappa succeeded to the suit land
and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
death. After the death of Sri.Narayanappa, plaintiff succeeded
to the suit land and he is in possession and enjoyment of the
same without obstruction from anybody. The defendants have
no manner of right, title, possession or interest over the suit
schedule property started causing obstruction and interfering
with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment and hence suit is filed
for the relief of declaration to declare them as absolute owners
and also filed the suit without alternative cancellation of
revenue entries standing in the name of defendant No.1 and
also for permanent injunction.
3. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants
appeared and filed written statement contending that suit itself
is not maintainable. Defendants have denied the plaintiff's
succession of suit land and also denied the plaintiff's lawful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
However, defendants have admitted the relationship of plaintiff
with his ancestors as pleaded in the plaint. It is contended that
defendants are own brothers residing in the joint family at
Muduvadi Village. Defendants are the absolute owners, in
actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
and they are in possession and paying tax to the Government.
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
It is specifically contended that Sri.Chokkappa and Sri.Byrappa
are the sons of Sri.Nachappa and not the sons of Huchappa.
Sri.Chokkappa being the absolute owner of the suit land, sold
the same along with other properties in favour of his wife
Smt.Muni Venkatamma on 30.08.1949 through registered sale
deed and delivered the possession. From the date of purchase,
Smt.Muni Venkatamma was in possession and enjoyment of the
suit land. Subsequently, Smt.Muni Venkatamma in order to
meet her legal necessity sold the suit land in favour of
Sri.Narayanappa of Mugalahalli Village through Registered Sale
Deed dated 12.12.1949 and delivered the possession. From the
date of purchase, the said Narayanappa was in possession and
enjoyment of the suit land. Subsequently, Sri.Narayanappa sold
the suit land in favour of Sri.Gopalappa S/o Bychappa of
Muduvadi village for valuable consideration and delivered the
possession in order to meet the legal necessity of his family.
Subsequent to purchase, Sri.Gopalappa was in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property without obstruction
and revenue records are also transferred in his name. After the
death of Gopalappa, defendants being his children succeeded to
the suit schedule property and got transferred the khatha in
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
their name as per MR No.11/1884-85, as he is managing the
affairs of joint family as Kartha and defendants are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings
framed the issues, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
of declaration and whether defendants prove that they are the
absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence
dismissed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree
an appeal is filed in R.A.No.133/2016 and considering the
grounds urged in the appeal, the First Appellate Court
formulated the point whether the Trial Court is justified in
dismissing the suit and whether it requires interference and
answered the same as affirmative in coming to the conclusion
that the Trial Court has not committed any error. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and
also the First Appellate Court, the present appeal is filed by the
plaintiff/appellant.
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
6. The counsel for the appellant vehemently contend
that both the Courts failed to consider the documents Exs.P6
and P7 and deceased Chokkappa is not having any absolute
right to sell the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Muni
Venkatamma and the title claimed by the defendants does not
disclose any title and both the Courts ought to have consider
the document Ex.D2 which is illegal and subsequent transaction
and Chokkappa died prior to Byrappa without issues. The
counsel also vehemently contend that after the death of
Byrappa, his son Narayanappa continued in possession of the
suit schedule property and after the death of Narayanappa, the
appellant herein continued in possession of the suit schedule
property and the very approach of both the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court is erroneous. The counsel vehemently
contend that this Court has to frame substantive question of
law whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have
failed to appreciate the genuineness of the document Ex.D2
executed in favour of Muni Venkatamma by his husband
Chokkappa and also to frame substantive question of law that
both the Courts have not properly appreciated the title of the
respondents when they claims that the suit schedule properties
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
are the ancestral properties and except the revenue
documents, they cannot produce any title deed and hence it
requires interference.
7. Having heard the appellant's counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the plaintiff has
sought for the relief of declaration and for injunction and no
doubt the plaintiff has relied upon the document particularly
Ex.P4 - Certified Copy of RR Pakka book and also Ex.P6
Certified Copy of Record of Rights and Ex.P7 Certified Copy of
Index of land. The counsel referring to these documents would
vehemently contend that in these records the name of both
Chokkappa and also Byrappa who is the grand father of the
plaintiff, names are entered in the revenue records and
properties devolves upon them by Nachappa and claimed the
relief of declaration to declare that plaintiff is the absolute
owner and he inherited the property from his grand father
Byrappa.
8. On perusal of the material available on record, the
Trial Court has taken note of the documentary evidence placed
before the Court in paragraph No.12, taken note of the
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
pleading and also in paragraph No.13 taken note of documents
which have been produced by the plaintiff and also discussed in
paragraph No.14, the documents which have been relied upon
by the plaintiff and also taken note of the judgment of Apex
Court in Balwant Singh Vs. Sri.Daulat Singh, wherein the
Court has held that the revenue documents are not the title
deeds and the revenue records will not create or extinguish title
and it is not presumptive value of title. The Trial Court also
taken note of the Dilip Singh Vs. Sikh Gurdwara
Prabhandak Committee case, wherein also reiterated that
revenue entries will not create any title and having taken note
of the principles laid down referred supra in paragraph No.17
discussed the evidence of defendants and in paragraph No.18
also taken note of the documents produced by the defendants,
comes to the conclusion that in order to prove the title, the
plaintiffs have not produced any document except the
documents which have been referred and the same will not
create any right.
9. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the
evidence available on record in paragraph No.15 taken note of
the documents which have been relied upon by the plaintiff
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
while seeking the relief of declaration comes to the conclusion
that plaintiff has to prove his title to the suit schedule property
by means of acceptable evidence. On the other hand, taken
note of the documents which have been relied upon by the
defendants, the sale deeds of the year 1949 onwards and suit
is filed in the year 2009 claiming that they are the absolute
owners and considering the documents of 'Ex.D' series also
discussed in appeal.
10. Having taken note of the findings of the Trial Court
and also the First Appellate Court and while seeking the relief of
declaration, the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own and
not to depend upon the weakness of the defendants and stand
on his own legs. No doubt it is the claim of the
plaintiff/appellant that property belongs to propositus Nachappa
and subsequently property devolves upon Chokkappa and
Byrappa and said Chokkappa was not having any absolute right
to execute sale deed in favour of his wife. In order to prove the
fact that property originally belongs to Nachappa, no document
is placed before the Court. Even it is contended that it is the
ancestral property, in order to prove the same as ancestral
property, no documents are produced except relying upon the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
documents Exs.P4, P6 and P7 and no doubt the name of
Chokkappa and Byrappa is entered in the said document and
no basis for entering their names and ought to have produced
any document of inheritance from Nachappa to Chokkappa and
Byrappa. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the
sale deed executed by Chokkappa in favour of his wife Muni
Venkatamma on 30.08.1949, wherein it is mentioned as
ancestral property and also self acquired and also it is not in
dispute that property was sold on 30.08.1949 by Chokkappa in
favour of his wife, in turn sold the property in favour of
Narayanappa on 12.12.1949, within a span of four months of
earlier sale deed and father of defendants also purchased the
property, title shows in favour of the defendants and the same
was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court. The plaintiff not produced any document
standing in the name of Nachappa. According to the plaintiff he
is the propositus of the family and merely because there is an
entry in the name of Chokkappa and Byrappa in the revenue
records and the same not creates any title and even assuming
that it is an ancestral property and ought to have produced
documents standing in the name of Nachappa to come to a
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
conclusion that the said property is the ancestral property and
in order to prove the same, nothing has been placed before the
Court except Exs.P4, P6 and P7 and revenue documents and
hence, the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.15 and 18 in detail
discussed both oral and documentary evidence. The First
Appellate Court also reassessed the material available on
record in paragraphs No.20, 21, 22 to 25 and not found any
material as claimed by the plaintiff. When such being the
material on record, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate
Court has given an anxious consideration to the material on
record and I have already pointed out that while seeking the
relief of declaration, plaintiff has to produce the document and
substantiate the document that property belongs to the
ancestors and except Exs.P4, P6 and P7 revenue entries not
produced any document and hence, I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in
dismissing the suit and also the appeal. Unless perversity is
found in the reasoning of the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court, the question of exercising the power under Section 100
of CPC does not arise.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34790
RSA No. 1285 of 2018
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
Second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
