Karnataka High Court
Grama Panchayat vs Nagegowda on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
RSA No. 516 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2013
(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. GRAMA PANCHAYAT
K R SAGAR
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571607
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
MANDYA - 570001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by R 1. NAGEGOWDA
DEEPA S/O NAGEGOWDA
Location: SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S
HIGH COURT
OF 1(1) SMT. NAGAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
1(2) SHRI RAVI
S/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1(3) SHRI NARAYANA
S/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
RSA No. 516 of 2013
1(4) SMT. DHARANI
D/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
1(5) SHRI. MURALI
S/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HONGAHALLI VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 607
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. RAJESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R1(1 TO 5)]
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 5.11.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.154/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, SRIRANGAPATNA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD
8.4.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.155/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CILVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC., SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2012,
passed in R.A.No.154/2010 by the District Judge, Fast
Track Court, Srirangapatna.
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The
appellants are the defendants and respondents are the
legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this
appeal are as under:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that, he is the
owner of the suit schedule property and for mandatory
injunction to direct the defendants to remove the
construction put up by the defendants and also for
permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from
causing interference to the suit schedule property.
It is the case of the plaintiff, that one Kempi D/o
Basavegowda is the grandmother of plaintiff, who was the
owner of land measuring 2 acre 39 guntas dry land and 1
acre 1 gunta garden land in Sy.No.110 of Hongahally
village. The said land was acquired by the Government on
09.09.1921. The grandmother of the plaintiff lost the
property and in consequences of such acquisition of her
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
property, she was granted a suit land in Sy.No.349 (old
Sy.No.180) measuring 2 acre 10 guntas. The said Kempi
died leaving behind her son as her legal heir. After the
demise of Kempi, the father of the plaintiff Nagegowda
enjoyed the suit schedule property as a owner. The father
of the plaintiff died in the year 1991 leaving behind the
plaintiff and his four brothers. The plaintiff and his
brothers got divided the family properties and the plaint
schedule property fallen to the share of the plaintiff. The
defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit
property, but they tried to cause interference and trespass
over the suit property. It is contended that defendant
No.1 laid down the foundation and attempting to put a
regular building with instigation of defendant Nos.2 and 4.
The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere or
trespass, but the defendants are not giving any heed to
the request made by the plaintiff. Hence cause of action
arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title
and injunction.
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
4. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 appeared before the
trial Court but they have not filed any written statement.
The defendant No.2 did not appear before the trial Court.
Hence defendant No.2 was placed exparte. The plaintiff in
order to prove his case examined himself as PW.1 and
examined 2 witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked 22
documents as Exs.P1 to 22. The defendants neither led
any oral evidence nor documentary evidence.
5. The trial Court after recording the evidence of
plaintiff's side, framed the following points for
consideration.
i. Whether the plaintiff proves that
Sy.No.110 was acquired by the LAO and
inconsequence the suit property was
given or granted to his grand mother?
ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
suit property has fallen to his share in
the division between his brothers?
iii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant No.1 has put up foundation in
the suit schedule property?
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a
declaration as prayed for?
v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a
mandatory and permanent injunction as
prayed for?
vi. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff,
plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and examined two
witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and marked 22 documents as
Exs.P1 to P22. The trial Court after the assessment of oral
and documentary evidence answered point Nos.1 to 5 in
the negative and point No.6 as per the final order. The suit
of the plaintiff was dismissed.
7. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed in the above said suit, filed an appeal in
R.A.No.154/2010. The First Appellate Court, after hearing
the parties, has framed the following points for
consideration:
(1) Whether the pleadings and proof is
sufficient to uphold the plea of the plaintiff
that he is the absolute owner in possession
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
of the suit property? If so, whether alleged
obstruction is true?
(2) Whether the appellant has made out
sufficient grounds to permit him to produce
the additional evidence as sought for in
CPC?
(3) Whether the judgment and decree of the
trial Court require interference in the
appeal?
(4) What order?
8. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the
oral and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and
3 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point
No.4 as per final order. The appeal was allowed. The
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set
aside and consequently suit was decreed. It is declared
that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and
granted permanent injunction.
9. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the first Appellate Court in
R.A.No.154/2010, have filed this second appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
10. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants
and also learned counsel for the plaintiff.
11. Learned counsel for the defendants submits
that the First Appellate Court committed an error in
decreeing the suit for declaration of title on the basis of
revenue records. He submits that suit filed by the plaintiff,
for the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable on
the basis of revenue records. He submits that the First
Appellate Court has lost sight and decreed the suit for
declaration of title in the absence of title deed. The
impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is
arbitrary and erroneous. Hence prayed to allow the
appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff
supports the impugned judgment and submits that the suit
land was given to the grandmother of the plaintiff as her
land was acquired in the year 1921. The plaintiff produced
the revenue records to establish title and possession over
the suit schedule property. The first Appellate Court
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
considering the material placed on record was justified in
passing the impugned judgment. Hence on these grounds
prays to dismiss the appeal.
13. This court on 30.01.2020, has admitted the
appeal on the following substantial question of law :
'Whether the first Appellate Court lost
sight of the fact that the plaintiff had not
placed on record any document of title or
any document indicating that the suit
survey numbers were allotted in exchange
to the land bearing Sy.No.110 that was
acquired for construction of KRS dam?'
14. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
15. Substantial question of law : It is the case
of the plaintiff that his grandmother Kempi was the owner
of agricultural land in Sy.No.349 (old Sy.No.180)
measuring 2 acre 10 guntas and the land of the plaintiff's
grandmother was acquired in the year 1921. In view of the
property acquired, the suit property was given to the
grandmother of the plaintiff. After the death of Kempi, the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
said property was enjoyed by the plaintiff's father and
after the death of the plaintiff's father, the said property
got divided between him and his brothers. In the said
partition, the suit schedule property was fallen to the
share of the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff became the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff
examined himself as PW.1 and he has reiterated the plaint
averments in the examination-in-chief and produced the
documents, Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the order sheet
which discloses that father of the plaintiff filed a suit
against KRS by it's chief officer in O.S.No.215/1995 which
discloses that the father of the plaintiff has withdrawn the
said suit vide order dated 09.07.2001. Ex.P2 is the copy of
legal notice issued under Section 80 of Code of Civil
Procedure, informing the defendants that the plaintiff will
initiate the legal proceedings against the defendants.
Ex.P3 to P6 are the postal receipts for having issued the
legal notice to the defendants. Exs.P7 to P10 are the
Register Post Acknowledgments Due, Ex.P11 revenue
receipt for having paid the tax. Ex.P12 is the notice issued
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
by the revenue authorities, calling objections from the
interested persons. Ex.P13 and 14 are the copies of
mutation extract, Ex.P15 to 18 are the RTC extracts in
respect of suit schedule property which stood in the name
of father of plaintiff, Ex.P19 is the certified copy of the
award passed in respect of land bearing Sy.No.110 as the
name of the khatedar is shown as Kempi. Ex.P20 is the
order passed by the revenue authorities which discloses
that phodi was done in respect of lands shown in Ex.P.20.
Ex.P22 is the tax paid receipt for having paid the land
revenue.
16. From the perusal of the records produced by
the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not produced any title deeds
to establish that in lieu of acquisition of land bearing
Sy.No.110, the suit schedule property was given to Kempi.
Except producing the revenue records the plaintiff has not
produced any title deeds. The plaintiff has filed a suit for
declaration of title. The said suit is not supported by the
title deed. The plaintiff has also not produced any
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
exchange deed alleged to have executed by the
Government in favour of Kempi. Hence the First Appellate
Court placing reliance on the revenue records declared the
plaintiff as a owner of the suit schedule property. The First
Appellate Court committed an error in passing a impugned
judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the First
Appellate Court is contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GURUNATH MANOHAR
PAVASKAR AND OTHERS VS. NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND
AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN (2007) 13 SCC 565, i.e., "the
revenue records are not a documents of title". In view of
the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law
in the affirmative.
17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
Judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court in R.ANo.154/2010 dated
05.11.2012 is set aside.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13498
Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.155/2001 dated 08.04.2008 by the
Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Srirangapatna, is restored.
No order as to the costs.
SD/-
JUDGE
SKS
