Karnataka High Court
Basappa vs Veerupaxappa on 8 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
RSA No. 2018 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2018/2005(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BASAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA SHIDDAPUR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R'S.
1A. SMT. BANDAWWA W/O. BASAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1B. SRI IRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1C. SRI MAHADEV S/O. BASAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
Digitally
signed by 2. SRI CHANNAPPA
VINAYAKA S/O. RUDRAPPA SHIDDAPUR,
BV
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
3. SRI PARAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA SHIDDAPUR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
SRI GIRIMALLAPPA R. SHIDDAPUR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
4. SMT. SHANTAWWA
W/O. GIRIMALLAPPA R. SHIDDAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
RSA No. 2018 of 2005
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MAREGUDDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
5. SRI KUMAR RUDRAPPA
S/O. GIRIMALLAPPA R. SHIDDAPUR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MAREGUDDI, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
6. SRI VEERAPPANNA
S/O. RUDRAPPA R. SHIDDAPUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
7. SRI NINGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BIDAKAL,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TERDAL, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
8. SRI BASAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA BIDAKAL,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TERDAL, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VEERUPAXAPPA
S/O. BASAPPA SHIDDAPUR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R'S.
1A. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1B. SRI SADASHIV S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1C. SRI PARAPPA S/O VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
RSA No. 2018 of 2005
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1D. SRI MALLAPPA S/O VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1E. SMT. BOURAVVA W/O. MAHADEV KOUJALAGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: C/O: SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA
SIDDAPUR, AT POST GOLBHAVI,
TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1F. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. RAJU SHIVAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: C/O: SMT. GANGAWWA
W/O VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AT POST GOLBHAVI, TAL: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1G. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O BASAPPA HANAGANDI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: C/O: SMT. GANGAWWA W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA
SIDDAPUR, AT POST GOLBHAVI,
TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
1H. SMT. RUDRAVVA W/O. SHIVABASU MURABATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: C/O: SMT. GANGAWWA
W/O. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AT POST GOLBHAVI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
SRI LAKKAPPA S/O. BASAPPA SHIDAPPUR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R'S
2A. SMT. IRAVVA W/O. LAKKAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 101.
2B. SRI SHRISHAIL S/O. LAKKAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
RSA No. 2018 of 2005
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
SRI IRAPPA S/O BASAPPA SHIDDAPUR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R'S.
3A. SMT. SHIDDAVVA W/O. IRAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
3B. SRI RAJU S/O. IRAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
3C. SRI MAHADEV S/O. IRAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
3D. SRI SHANKAR S/O. IRAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
3E. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O. IRAPPA SIDDAPUR,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:GOLBHAVI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
4. SRI KALLAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA LATTI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KALTIPPI, TAL:JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE - 587 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 (A TO H), R2 (A) AND R3(A TO E);
NOTICE TO R2 (B) AND R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 07.07.2005 PASSED IN R.A.NO.
135/96 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE &
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, JAMAKHANDI
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 06.11.1996 PASSED IN OS. 177/1989 ON THE
FILE OF THE MUNSIFF & J.M.F.C., BANHATTI.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
RSA No. 2018 of 2005
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8 in O.S.No.177/1989
have filed this Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment
and decree dated 06.11.1996 passed therein by the J.M.F.C.,
Banahatti (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') as well as the
judgment and decree dated 07.07.2005 passed by the District
and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,
Jamakhandi (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in
R.A.No.135/1996.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they
were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein
were the defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8, while respondent
Nos.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs and respondent No.4 was the
defendant No.6.
3. The suit in O.S.No.177/1989 was filed by the
plaintiffs for declaration that they are the owners of the suit
schedule property and to declare that the mutation entries
10019 and 14815 in respect of the suit schedule property as
false and not binding upon them and for consequential
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
or obstructing their possession. The suit property was the land
bearing Sy.No.689/4, measuring 3 acres 15 guntas situate at
Terdal village. The plaintiffs claimed that the land bearing
Sy.No.689 was exclusively under possession of their ancestor
Veerupaxappa, who had three children namely, Sateppa,
Rudrappa and Irappa. Amongst the above, Rudrappa died
issueless, while Sateppa had two children namely Gurupadappa
and Dundappa. Irappa had three children namely, Basappa,
Chennappa, Sangappa. The plaintiffs claimed to be the children
of Basappa. They contend that after the death of
Veerupaxappa, the land bearing Sy.No.689 was partitioned
between Sateppa and Irappa prior to 1931 and Sy.No.689 was
divided into six strips and numbered as Sy.Nos.689/1, 689/2,
689/3, 689/4, 689/5 and 689/6. Amongst six strips,
Sy.Nos.689/1, 689/4, 689/5 were allotted to the share of
Sateppa, while Sy.Nos.689/2, 689/3, 689/6 were allotted to the
share of Irappa. They claimed that Sateppa sold off his entire
estate in Sy.Nos.689/1, 689/4, 689/5 in favour of Gadigeppa
and Basappa on 24.05.1935. Therefore, Sateppa did not retain
any portion of the land in Sy.Nos.689/1, 689/4, 689/5. Later,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
properties allotted to the share of Irappa namely Sy.Nos.689/2,
689/3, 689/6 were renumbered as Sy.Nos.689/2, 689/4 and
689/5. The land bearing Sy.No.689/2 fell to the share of
Sangappa and Sy.No.689/5 fell to the share of Chennappa and
Sy.No.689/4 fell to the share of Basappa. The plaintiffs are the
children of Basappa and claimed that after the death of
Basappa, they jointly inherited the land bearing Sy.No.689/4.
They contend that the revenue documents stood testimony to
the above fact. They further contend that the defendants were
the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.691/1 of Terdal village
and that they did not have any right, title or interest in any
portion of the land bearing erstwhile Sy.No.689 let alone, the
land bearing Sy.No.689/4. They contend that taking advantage
of similarity in the names of the father of the plaintiffs and
grandfather of defendant No.1, the mutation proceedings were
brought about in Entry Nos.10019 and 14815 in respect of
Sy.No.689/4 instead of Sy.No.691/1. They contended that the
defendants thereafter, sold the land bearing Sy.No.689/4 on
22.06.1982 giving boundaries of land bearing Sy.No.691/1 and
this sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.6. The
defendant No.6 thereafter conveyed the very same property to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
the defendant Nos.7 and 8 on 20.03.1986. The plaintiffs
therefore, contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 took
advantage of the wrong mutation to claim title in respect of the
land bearing Sy.No.689/4. Therefore, they contend that what
was sold by the defendant No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant
No.6 was the land bearing Sy.No.691/1 and not the suit
schedule property namely, Sy.No.689/4. The plaintiffs
therefore, sought for the reliefs mentioned above.
4. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing a
written statement wherein he denied that the defendant Nos.1
to 5 were owners of not only the land bearing Sy.No.691/1 but
claimed that they were the owner of the suit schedule property
as well and that they inherited the same from his ancestors
namely, Basappa, their grandfather. Though the father of the
plaintiffs was alive in the year 1973, when mutation entries
10019 and 10020 were effected in the name of their
grandfather, he did not raise any objection against the
mutation entries. The defendant No.1 contended that after his
father died, mutation entries were registered in the names of
defendant Nos.1 to 5 in M.E.No.14815 on 21.05.1982 and that
the plaintiffs' father again did not raise any objection. He
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
contended that Sy.Nos.691/1 and 689/4 were similar in area
and due to the confusion, the boundaries were mistakenly
mentioned in the sale deeds and that the plaintiffs were trying
to take advantage of the mistaken boundaries mentioned in the
sale deeds. The defendant No.1 further contended that the
property that was conveyed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 to
defendant No.6 as well as property conveyed by the defendant
No.6 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 was not the land
bearing Sy.No.691/1 but was the land bearing Sy.No.689/4.
Therefore, he contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled for
any reliefs that were sought for.
5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
the owners of the suit land as alleged?
2. Whether the defendants prove that they
have become owners of the suit land by
adverse possession as stated in their W.S.?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they were
in lawful possession and enjoyment of the
suit land on the date of filing of the suit as
alleged?
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
4. Whether they prove obstruction as alleged?
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not
maintainable?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the
reliefs as claimed?
7. What Decree or Order?
6. The plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW.1 and he
marked Exs.P1 to P18. He also examined his cousin,
Gurulingappa as PW.2. The defendant No.1 was examined as
DW.1 and an acquaintance was examined as DW.2. Defendant
No.8 was examined as DW.3. However, no document was
marked on their behalf.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had proved their title in
respect of the land bearing Sy.No.689/4 of Terdal village. It
also held that the plaintiffs had proved that they were in
possession of the suit schedule property and that the
defendants had obstructed to the possession of the plaintiffs in
the suit schedule property and consequently, decreed the suit
declaring that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
schedule property and also restrained defendants from
interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit
schedule property. It directed that the decree be
communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, for
necessary alteration in the revenue records in accordance with
Section 132(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,
the defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8 filed R.A.No.135/1996 before
the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court secured the
records of the Trial Court and after hearing the defendants as
well as the plaintiffs framed following points for consideration:-
1) Whether the appellants have made out a
sufficient grounds and reasons for non-
production of the original document of
their sale deed dated 24.12.1986 before
the trial Court and as such the said
additional evidence is to be allowed in
this appeal as prayed in I.A.No.V filed
under Order 41 rule 27 R/w Sec.151
CPC?
2) Whether the judgment and decree of the
trial Court passed in O.S.No.177/1989
dated 6-11-1996 and granting of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
relief of declaration and for permanent
injunction as prayed in the suit in favour
of plaintiffs is illegal, perverse, capricious
and not based on the sound reasonings
as per the pleadings and the evidence of
the respective parties and the same is
not sustainable and liable to be set-aside
by interfering in this appeal?
3) What order?
9. The First Appellate Court held that the document
placed on record established antecedent title of the plaintiffs'
predecessor in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.689. It also
held that Hissa register extract indicated the division of
Sy.No.689 into six divisions of which, Sy.No.689/4 measuring 3
acres 15 guntas fell to the share of father of the plaintiffs. It
also noticed that defendant Nos.1 to 5 had produced a copy of
the sale deed executed by the defendant No.7 and 8 dated
24.12.1986 in terms of which, they repurchased the property
that they had conveyed to defendant No.6. It noticed the
evidence of DW.3 that he and his brother had purchased the
land bearing Sy.No.691 and not the land in Sy.No.689/4. It
also noticed that the boundaries of the property mentioned in
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
the sale deeds executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour
of the defendant No.6 and the consequent sale deed executed
by the defendant No.6 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8
corresponded to the boundaries of the land bearing Sy.No.691
and not Sy.No.689/4. The First Appellate Court therefore, held
that in the absence of any title of the defendants to the land
bearing Sy.No.689/4, the defendants could not have contested
the claim of the plaintiffs based on the mutation entries and
consequently, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
10. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of fact
recorded by both the Courts below, defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7
and 8 have filed this Regular Second Appeal.
11. This Court had admitted this appeal to consider the
following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the courts below were justified in
granting the decree for declaration of title and
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents
ignoring the evidence on record?"
12. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7
and 8 submitted that in a suit for declaration of title and
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
consequential reliefs, it is incumbent upon the plaintiffs to not
only prove their title but also its extent and the boundaries.
She contended that as per the averments of the plaint, the land
bearing Sy.No.689/3, measuring 2 acre 10 guntas, was
renumbered as Sy.No.689/4 and the survey documents and the
revenue documents placed on record disclosed the extent of
land in Sy.No.689/4 as 3 acres 15 guntas as against 2 acres 10
guntas. She therefore, contended that unless the plaintiffs
established how the extent measuring 2 acres 10 guntas
became 3 acres 15 guntas, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any
declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
submitted that the dispute arose only upon the name of the
grandfather of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 was wrongly entered in
the mutation in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.689/4, which
perhaps was due to the similarity in the names of the father of
the plaintiffs and grandfather of the defendant Nos.1 to 5. He
submits that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 taking advantage of the
mutation entries in the name of their grandfather conveyed the
property bearing Sy.No.689/4 but mentioned the boundaries of
the land bearing Sy.No.691/1. He submitted that the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
defendant Nos.1 to 5 thereafter repurchased the land that they
sold to the defendant No.8. He contends that the defendant
No.8 from whom the defendant Nos.1 to 5 ultimately
repurchased the property was examined as DW.3 and he
categorically mentioned that what was sold to him and what he
sold to defendant Nos.1 to 5 was the land bearing Sy.No.691/1
and not Sy.No.689/4. He contends that since the defendant
Nos.1 to 5 did not establish their better title to the land bearing
Sy.No.689/4 and did not produce any document to establish
their claim that they had inherited the property from their
ancestors, the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court is well justified and does not
warrant interference. Besides he submits that when there is a
dispute between the survey number and boundaries, it is the
latter which prevails and contended that what was sold by
defendant Nos.1 to 5 and later repurchased was the land in
Sy.No.691/1 and not 689/4. He further submits that there is
no substantial question of law which arises for consideration in
this appeal including the one framed by this Court.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8 and the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
learned counsel for the plaintiffs. I have also perused the
records of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts.
15. The plaintiffs pleaded in their plaint that they are
interested in the land bearing Sy.No.689/4 while defendants
were interested in the land bearing Sy.No.691/1. The plaintiffs
claimed that the land bearing Sy.No.689 was partitioned
amongst two children of Veerupaxappa namely, Sateppa and
Irappa in terms of which, three strips namely, Sy.Nos.689/1,
689/4, 689/5 fell to the share of Sateppa, while Sy.Nos.689/2,
689/3, 689/6 fell to the share of Irappa. They contended that
Sateppa sold his share in favour of Gadigeppa and Basappa in
the year 1935 and Gadigeppa and Basappa later sold it to
Baslappa on 15.04.1941. They claimed that the land bearing
Sy.Nos.689/3 and 689/6 was renumbered as Sy.Nos.689/4 and
689/5 and at a partition between the children of Irappa, the
land bearing Sy.No.689/4 fell to the share on their father while
Sy.No.689/5 fell to the share of their uncle Chennappa and
Sy.No.689/2 fell to the share of their younger uncle Sangappa.
The documents placed on record more particularly Ex.P3 shows
that Sy.No.689/3, measuring 2 acres fell to the share of Irappa
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
i.e., grandfather of the plaintiffs. Similarly, Ex.P7 was the
mutation entries brought about on 16.06.1953 in respect of
Sy.No.689/4 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas and stood in the
name of father of the plaintiffs. Ex.P8 and 9 also indicate that
Sy.No.689/5, 689/6 were all possessed by the uncles of the
plaintiffs. The incriminating mutation, which is produced as
Ex.P10 and brought about on 08.10.1973 shows that the land
bearing Sy.No.689/4 was mutated in favour of Rudrappa who is
the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 5. Similarly, Ex.P11 was
the consequent mutation entry brought about in respect of the
land bearing Sy.No.689/4 in M.E. No.14815. The RTC at
Ex.P12 also shows that the land bearing Sy.No.689/4 stood in
the name of the father of the plaintiffs, which was rounded off
and the name of the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 was
entered pursuant to the mutation proceedings. Therefore,
there are documentary evidence which indicate that the name
of the father of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 came to be entered in
the revenue records for the first time in the year 1973, while
prior thereto, the name of the father of the plaintiffs was
entered in the mutation entries. A perusal of the record
discloses that except denying the claim of the plaintiffs,
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
defendants did not produce any material to establish that they
had any title to the land bearing Sy.No.689/4. The defendant
Nos.1 to 5, who claimed that they had inherited the land
bearing Sy.No.689/4 from their ancestors did nothing to
establish that they had any document of title prior to
08.09.1973. Contrarily, the plaintiffs throughout contended that
the boundaries mentioned by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 when
they sold the land bearing Sy.No.689/4 corresponding to the
boundaries of the land in Sy.No.691/1 and this was admitted by
the defendant No.8 who was examined as DW.3 and who
categorically mentioned that what was purchased by him was
not the land in Sy.No.689/4 but was the land bearing
Sy.No.691/1.
16. In a suit for declaration of title, it is for the
defendants to establish better title than the plaintiffs and only
then, can a suit for declaration be dismissed. In the case on
hand, though the defendants claimed title to the land bearing
Sy.No.689/4, they did not establish the said fact. On the
contrary, the division of the land bearing Sy.No.689 into six
parts and consequent allotment of the land bearing
Sy.No.689/4 to the family of the plaintiffs stood amply
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:385
established and there is no material either oral or documentary
adduced by the defendants to establish their antecedent title to
the suit schedule property. On the contrary, as rightly claimed
by the plaintiffs what was conveyed by them to defendant No.6
was the land bearing Sy.No.691/1 and not the suit property. It
is evident that the defendants have played a gamble by
showing the survey number as '689/4' instead of 'Sy.No.691/1'
so as to take undue advantage of the wrong mutation entries
brought about in respect of the suit schedule property.
17. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit of the
plaintiffs and therefore, the substantial question of law framed
by this Court is answered against the defendants.
Hence, this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
PMR
CT-ASC
