Karnataka High Court
Hanumantha And Ors vs Sabayya S/O Late Hanumantharaya ... on 6 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
RFA No. 200097 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200097 OF 2016
(DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. HANUMANTHA
S/O HANUMANTHARAYA
@ HANUMANTHA KOTHADODDI,
AGE:57 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
2. YANKAPPA S/O HANUMANTHARAYA
@ HANUMANTHA KOTHADODDI,
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
3. DEVAPPA S/O HANUMANTHARAYA
@ HANUMANTHA KOTHADODDI,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
Digitally ALL ARE R/O KURKIHALLI VILLAGE,
signed by
SACHIN
TQ.DEODURGA - 584111, DIST.RAICHUR.
Location: ...APPELLANTS
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI.PRAMODKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAMCHANDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SABAYYA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYA VADAGERI,
AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. RANGAYYA
S/O ALTE HANUMANTHARAYA VADAGERI,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
RFA No. 200097 of 2016
3. SHIVAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYA VADAGERI,
AGE:35 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O SALIKAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ.DEODURGA - 584111, DIST: RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-3 SERVED, UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER XLI
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE
AT DEODURGA IN O.S.NO.159/2016 (NEW) (O.S.No.201/15
OLD) AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND GRANT
COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the Appellants/plaintiffs are assailing
the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2016 in
O.S.No.159/2016 (Old O.S.No.201/2015) on the file of
Senior Civil Judge at Deodurga, dismissing the suit of the
plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
3. The plaint averments are that plaintiffs have
filed suit seeking relief of declaration of title, possession
and consequential relief of rectification of revenue
documents. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land
bearing Sy.No.54/EE measuring 05 acres 21 guntas
situate at Karkihalli Village, Deodurga Taluk is belonged to
father of the plaintiff - Hanumantha @ Hanumantharaya
and on the demise of their father, the plaintiffs succeed to
the estate of suit schedule property.
It is further averred in the plaint that defendant No.1
has sold the schedule property in favour of father of
defendant Nos.2 to 4 as per registered sale-deed dated
15.05.1969 and the said registered sale-deed is not
binding and accordingly filed O.S.No.201/2015 which was
renumbered as O.S.No.159/2016 on the file of the Trial
Court.
4. After service of notice, the defendants have not
represented before the Trial Court and placed ex-parte.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the plaint
averments, framed the following points for consideration :-
i) Whether plaintiff entitled relief as
claimed in the plaint ?
ii) What order ?
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have
examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got
marked 11 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.11.
7. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, vide its judgment and decree dated 25.10.2016,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular First
Appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel Sri Pramodkumar
Patil, appearing for the appellants and the respondents
remained absent. Records from the Trial Court is perused.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
9. Sri Pramodkumar Patil on behalf of
Sri Ramchandra K., learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the plaintiffs have inherited the
suit schedule property from their father and despite
produced the relevant documents before the Trial Court,
he contended that the Trial Court has committed an error
in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and accordingly
sought for interference of this Court.
10. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the following
points for consideration arises in this appeal are :
i) Whether the plaintiffs have made out a
case for interference in the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court,
seeking relief of declaration in the
absence of title documents ?
ii) Whether the Trial Court has committed
any error in dismissing the suit ?
iii) What order or decree ?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
11. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is the case
of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is belonged
to the father of plaintiffs and on his demise, the property
was devolved to the plaintiffs. It is also forthcoming from
the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the suit
schedule property has been sold by defendant No.1 in
favour of father of defendant Nos.2 to 4 as per registered
sale-deed dated 15.05.1969. The plaintiffs have not
produced any cogent material to establish their legal right
over the suit schedule properties and in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Hullappa vs. State
of Karnataka and others1, it is held that in a suit for
declaration of title, unless the plaintiff produces the
document of title, the Civil Court cannot grant declaration
on the basis of record of rights. In that view of the matter,
considering the documents produced by the plaintiffs as
per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11, the plaintiffs have failed to produce
the title document to establish how the father of the
ILR 2012 KAR 4958
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1312
plaintiffs acquired the schedule property. Following the
declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others2, I
do not find any material illegality or perversity in the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the
points for consideration framed above favours the
defendants and accordingly the appeal is dismissed as
devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
(2014) 2 SCC 269
