Karnataka High Court
Baburao And Anr vs Shivalingappa And Anr on 15 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200243 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. BABURAO
S/O BASSANNA KORE
AGE: 70 YEARS
R/O HONNALLI VILLAGE,
ALAND TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT.
2. NAGANNA
S/O BASSANNA KORE
AGE: 58 YEARS
R/O HONNALLI VILLAGE,
ALAND TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT.
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O SHARNAPPA KORE
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HONNALLI VILLAGE,
ALAND TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT - 585 302.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
2. SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA KORE
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HONNALLI VILLAGE,
ALAND TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT - 585 302.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LOKESH REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09TH JANUARY, 2019 PASSED
IN REGULAR APPEAL No.4 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALAND, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 07TH
NOVEMBER, 2016 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.203 OF 2009
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
ALAND.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGM ENT
This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs challenging the
judgment and decree dated 09th January, 2019 passed in
Regular Appeal No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Aland (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First
Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming
the judgment and decree dated 07th November, 2016
passed in Original Suit No.203 of 2009 on the file of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Aland (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit
filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs filed
Original Suit No.203 of 2009, seeking relief of declaration
that the they are the owners in possession of the schedule
property stating that the properties are belong to their
ancestors. It is also stated in the plaint that the
defendants are interfering with the suit schedule
properties and as such, the plaintiffs filed suit before the
Trial Court.
4. After service of summons, defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying
the plaint averments. It is the specific contention of the
defendants that the entire Survey No.29 belongs to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
family of plaintiffs and defendants and after the partition
in the family, defendants got half share in the schedule
property and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court
has formulated issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.1
himself was examined PW1 and got marked 11 documents
as Exhibits P1 to P11. On the other hand, defendant No.1
was examined as DW1 and got marked 12 documents as
Exhibits D1 to D12.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 07th November,
2016, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved
by the same, the appellant/plaintiffs filed Regular Appeal
No.4 of 2017 on the file of First Appellate Court and the
said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First
Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record,
by its judgment and decree dated 09th January, 2019,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and
decree dated 07th November, 2016 passed by the Trial
Court in Original Suit No.203 of 2009. Being aggrieved
same, appellant/plaintiffs have preferred this Regular
Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
8. Heard Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs and Sri.
Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/defendants.
9. Sri. Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs submits that
both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the
material on record and wrongly arrived at a conclusion
that the plaintiffs have not proved title and possession in
respect of the schedule property, despite the plaintiffs
have produced Exhibit P6-Muation and Panchanama to
establish their right over the property in question and
accordingly, he sought for inference of this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
10. Per contra, Sri. Lokesh Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the courts below.
11. In the light of submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the
finding recorded by the Courts below, the same would
indicate that the plaintiffs have not produced the title
document to establish their right over the schedule
property. It is well establish principle in law that the grant
of declaration based on the revenue documents like RTC
and Mutation Extracts is to be deprecated and it is duty of
the plaintiffs to produce the document of title and the Civil
Court cannot grant declaration on the basis of revenue
records [See ILR 2012 KAR 4958 and (2014 (2) SCC
269]. Applying the aforementioned principle to the case
on hand, as the plaintiffs sought for declaratory relief
based on the mutation extract produced at Exhibits P5 to
P9, I am of the view that the finding record by the Courts
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1554
RSA NO.200243 OF 2019
below is just and proper and no inference is called for in
this appeal.
12. Therefore, I do not find material irregularities or
perversity in the judgments and decree passed by the
Courts below. Hence, Regular Second Appeal is liable to be
dismissed. Since, the appellant/plaintiffs have not made
out grounds for formulation of substantial question of law
as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
appeal is liable to be dismissed at the stage of Admission
itself. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
