Karnataka High Court
Rudramma W/O Hanamantrao And Ors vs Annarao @ Annaraya S/O Sidramappa ... on 3 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
RSA No. 200112 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200112/2021(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. RUDRAMMA W/O HANAMANTRAO
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HAGARGUNDAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
2. JAGADEVI @ AMBAWWA
D/O HANAMANTRAO
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HAGARGUNDAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. ANNARAO @ ANNARAYA
S/O SIDRAMAPPA YELLAMELI
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KIRANAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
2. SANTOSH S/O HANAMANTRAO ALMEL
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KIRANAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
RSA No. 200112 of 2021
3. SHIVALINGAMMA @ PARVATI
W/O HANAMANTRAO ALMEL
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KIRANAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585308.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 & R3 - SERVED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN RA NO.38/2017 DATED 08.12.2020
AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN O.S.
NO.172/2011 DATED 13.04.2017 AND DISMISS THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL
COURT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present regular second appeal by defendant Nos.1
and 2 assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2020 in
R.A. No.38/2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred
to as 'first Appellate Court' for short), reversing the
judgment and decree dated 13.04.2017 in O.S. No.172/2011
on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge at
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to 'trial Court' for short),
whereby, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the first
appellate Court holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner
and in possession of the suit schedule property and granted
relief of injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4 from
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
over the suit property.
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their ranking
before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration of ownership
and perpetual injunction in respect of land bearing Survey
No.402, measuring 10 acres towards Southern side of total
extent of land measuring 22 acres 33 guntas (hereinafter
referred to as 'suit property' for the sake of convenience), by
virtue of the registered sale deed dated 28.04.1976. It is
stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property for
valuable consideration from one Bhimrao S/o. Hanmanthrao
and pursuant to the sale deed in his favour, he is in possession
of the suit property. It is stated that the defendants having no
right, title and interest over the suit property has got their
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
names entered in the revenue records behind back of the
plaintiff. It is stated that defendant No.4 is the second wife of
Hanmanthraya and defendant No.3 is child born to
Hanmanthraya and defendant No.4, Hanmanthraya was not the
owner or possessor of the suit property in any capacity and he
was separated from the family during the life time of his father,
further the revenue entries recorded in the name of
Hanmanthraya was illegal and without any basis. When the
defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff, the suit seeking title
and perpetual injunction came to be filed.
4. On notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and
filed their written statement, inter alia, contending that the
plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property and
denied about any partition between Hanmanthraya and his
father Sidramappa. It is stated that defendant No.1 is the first
wife of deceased Hanmanthraya, defendant No.2 is the
daughter born to Hanmanthraya through defendant No.1. The
deceased Hanmanthraya on the advise of ill-wishers refused to
maintain defendant Nos.1 and 2, whereby, they are forced to
file petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance
against Hanmanthraya, which was allowed on 09.04.1979. It is
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
stated that Hanmanthraya had not challenged the order
awarding maintenance.
5. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have appeared through their
counsel, but not filed written statement.
6. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed
the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the
absolute owner and in possession of the suit
schedule property by virtue of the sale deed
dated 28.04.1976 bearing Doc. No.151/1976-77
for valuable consideration?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants
without having any right or interest over the
suit schedule property got created the illegal
entries in the records of rights of the suit
schedule property and causing interference in
his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and hence, the cause of
action has arisen to file the suit?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 prove that
they are the wife and daughter of deceased
Hanmanthrao @ Hanumanthraya and as they
have been neglected by the deceased
Hanumanthraya, they have initiated the legal
proceedings against him and as such, they are
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
having legitimate share in the suit schedule
property?
4. Whether the defendant No.3 and 4 prove that
they are the only legal heirs to the deceased
Hanumanthraya and deceased Hanumanthraaya
orally got divided the ancestral property and
was living separately and deed was also
executed in favour of his father on 21.09.1960
by him and in the family oral settlement-cum-
partition, the suit land has fallen to the share of
father of defendant No.3, therefore, they are
the owners in actual possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
sought for?
6. What order or decree?"
7. In order to substantiate their claim, plaintiff
examined himself as PW1, one witness as PW2 and marked
documents at Exs.P1 to P29. On the other hand, defendant
No.2 examined herself as DW1, defendant No.1 examined
herself as DW2 and defendant No.3 examined himself as DW3
and marked documents at Exs.D1 to D20.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
8. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral
and documentary evidence, held as under:
i) The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute
owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of the
sale deed dated 28.04.1976 for valuable consideration;
ii) The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants without
having any right, title or interest over the suit property
created illegal entries in the revenue records of the suit
property;
iii) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 proved that they are the wife and
the daughter of deceased Hanmanthraya; and
By its judgment and decree, the trial Court held that the
rights of the plaintiff and defendants in the suit property cannot
be adjudicated completely in the present case and moreover
dismissal of the suit is not confirming any rights over the
defendants and the defendants in O.S. No.3/2013 can prove
the ownership and previous partition and that the plaintiff is not
entitled for any relief as claimed in the plaint. Accordingly,
dismissed the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
9. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the
first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court, by re-
appreciating and re-analyzing the entire oral and documentary
evidence, reversed the findings of the trial Court, set aside the
judgment and decree and held that the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession of the
suit property and restrained the defendants from interfering
with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
property. Aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this
Court in this regular second appeal.
10. Heard Sri B.K. Hiremath, learned counsel for the
appellants-defendants and Sri S.B. Hangarki, learned counsel
for respondent No.1-plaintiff.
11. The first Appellate Court, while re-appreciating the
entire oral and documentary evidence, framed the following
points for its consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the
owner and in possession of the suit property by
virtue of sale deed dated 28.04.1976 bearing
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
Doc. No.151/1976-77 for a valuable
consideration?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that
Hanumanthraya has orally divided and living
separately, hence he had no right, interest in
the suit property, as such, the defendants are
not having any right in the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged cause of
action for filing the suit?
4. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 prove that
the deceased Hanumanthraya neglected them,
hence, they initiated legal proceedings against
him and being the successors of deceased
Hanumanthraya, they are having right in the
suit property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
sought?
6. What order or decree?"
12. The first Appellate Court held that registered sale
deed dated 28.04.1976 was executed by Bhimrao S/o.
Hanmanthrao Umarji and Gangubai W/o. Hanmanthrao in
favour of Annarao @ Annaraya S/o. Sidramppa Yellameli
(plaintiff herein). The first appellate Court also held that,
pursuant to the sale deed, mutation entry was effected as per
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
Ex.P24. The first Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire oral
and documentary evidence, more particularly, Exs.P2 to P28
and placing reliance on the said documents, held that the said
documents clearly established that the plaintiff is the owner
and in possession of the suit property. The documents
produced by the plaintiff were not disproved by the defendants
by placing cogent and convincing evidence. In the revenue
records, on what basis the name of Hanmanthrao S/o.
Sidramappa is entered is not forthcoming and the first
Appellate Court held that mere entry of the name of
Hanmanthrao in the revenue records would not confer any title
in the name of the defendants to claim right over the suit
schedule property.
13. The law is well settled that the mere appearance of
the name of a party in the revenue records without any
document of title would not confer any right, title or interest
over the property. The entry should be evidenced by a
registered document and in the absence of the same, the party
cannot contend that he is entitled for right over the property.
Absolutely no records are forthcoming to indicate that
Hanmanthraya was the owner of the suit schedule property.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
The first appellate Court, however, went to the extent of
holding the relationship of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and 3 and 4
with that of Hanmanthraya, which of course is pending
consideration in O.S. No.3/2013.
14. In the instant case, the plaintiff's suit was for
declaration and injunction that he is the absolute owner in
possession over the suit property by virtue of the registered
sale deed executed in the year 1976. The trial Court had
committed a serious error and illegality in dismissing the suit of
the plaintiff. The first appellate Court has rightly re-
appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and held
that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration in light of the
registered sale deed executed in his favour. There is no
illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree of the first
Appellate Court in declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute
owner and in possession of suit property warranting any
interference under Section 100 CPC, no substantial questions of
law arise for consideration in the present second appeal. The
relationship of the defendants with that of Hanmanthraya is not
considered in this appeal. Accordingly, this Court pass the
following:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4536
ORDER
i) The regular second appeal is dismissed.
ii) Judgment and decree of the first
Appellate Court stands confirmed.
Pending I.As., if any, does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS
CT: VD
