Karnataka High Court
Amalappa vs Basappa S/O Ningappa Since Deceased on 12 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
RSA No. 200388 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200388 OF 2017 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
AMALAPPA S/O MAREPPA NARAYANUR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MADNAL, TQ: SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585223.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAPPA S/O NINGAPPA
SINCE DECEASED
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN (i) KANTAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA,
Location:
HIGH COURT AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
OF
KARNATAKA
(ii) MALLAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
(iii) MALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA,
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
(iv) ISHAPPA S/O BASAPPA,
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. MALLAPPA S/O NINGAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
RSA No. 200388 of 2017
3. BHEEMAWWA W/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. HANAMANTHRAYA S/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/AT MADNAL,
TQ: SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-585223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHAITANYA KUMAR C.M. ADVOCATE FOR R-1(i) &
R-1(ii), R-2 TO R-4, R-1(iii) & (IV) ARE MINORS U/G OF R-1(i))
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC, AGAINSTS
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.06.2017 IN RA
NO.39/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
SHAHAPUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.282/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC AT SHAHAPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, plaintiff/appellant is assailing the
judgment and decree dated 08.06.2017 in R.A.No.39/2016
on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Shahapur, dismissing
the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated
30.03.2016 in O.S.No.282/2012 on the file of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Shahapur, dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
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.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the land in
question is belonged to his grandfather - Bhimaraya and
after his death, his father - Mareppa, succeeded to the
estate and on his demise, the plaintiff became owner in
possession of the land. It is the case of the plaintiff that
his father Mareppa availed loan of `10,000/- during the
year 1963-64 from the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2-
Ningappa, by oral mortgage of the suit land and thereafter
possession was not given back to the father of the plaintiff
and as such, the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.282/2012 on
the file of Trial Court seeking relief of declaration with
consequential relief of possession in respect of the suit
schedule property.
4. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and have filed written statement denying the
averments made in the plaint.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
5. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings on
record, framed the issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has
examined four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4 and marked 266
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.266. Defendants have
examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and marked
19 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D19.
7. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, vide its judgment and decree dated 30.03.2016,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has preferred appeal in R.A.No.39/2016
before the First Appellate Court and the appeal was
resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after
considering the material on record, dated 08.06.2017
dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.282/2012. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has preferred the present second
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
8. I have heard learned counsel Sri B.C.Jaka,
appearing for the appellant and Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M.,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. Sri B.C.Jaka, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that both the Courts below have not
considered the fact that the father of the plaintiff -
Mareppa had inherited the suit schedule property from his
father-Bhimaraya and accordingly, sought for interference
of this Court.
10. Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., learned counsel
appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned
judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the original records.
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff
inherited the property from his grandfather Bhimraya and
his father-Mareppa had mortgaged the property in
question in favour of father of defendant Nos.1 and 2
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
orally and therefore sought for relief as claimed in the
plaint.
13. It is well established principle in law that in a
suit for declaration, it is the duty of the plaintiff to produce
the relevant document - parent document to establish his
right over the property in question. Revenue documents
are not the title documents and therefore, in a suit for
declaration, unless the plaintiff produce the relevant
document of title, the Civil court cannot grant declaration
on the basis of record of rights. The revenue record is not
a document of title. (See ILR 2012 KAR 4958 and (2014) 2
SCC 269). Following the declaration of law made in the
aforementioned judgments, I am of the view that both the
Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff
and the plaintiff/appellant has not made out a case to
frame substantial question of law as required under
Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure and also has not
made out a case for interference of this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1458
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of
merits at the admission stage.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
