Karnataka High Court

Hanumavva vs Yankamma on 7 June, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707
                                                     RSA No. 200350 of 2018




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                    KALABURAGI BENCH

                             DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                           BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

                      REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200350/2018(DEC/INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                   HANUMAVVA W/O NAGAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                   R/O. GOBBARKAL VILLAGE,
                   TQ. SINDHANUR,
                   DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

                                                               ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   YANKAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA         R/O. SIDDAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
SHERIGAR           DIST. KOPPAL-582114.
Location: High
Court of                                                     ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka          (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
                   SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
                   SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
                   22.03.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT
                   RAICHUR IN R.A. NO.19/2013 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
                   AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2013 IN O.S. NO.56/2006 PASSED
                   BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT LINGASUGUR.
                                -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707
                                        RSA No. 200350 of 2018




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                           JUDGMENT

The concurrent findings of facts by Courts below have

been assailed by the plaintiffs, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff

seeking for declaration, injunction and rectification of mutation

entry was dismissed by the Courts below.

2. Parties herein are referred to as per their ranking

before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaint avers that late Nagappa had married

plaintiff - Hanumavva after expiry of his first wife about 27

years back; defendant Yenkamma is the daughter of Late

Nagappa through his first wife. The plaintiff had a son by name

Chidananda out of her marriage with Nagappa. After three

years of their marriage Nagappa expired. The land bearing

Survey No.53/C measuring 3 acres 29 guntas and the land

bearing Survey No.63/3 measuring 11 acres 13 guntas, both

situated at Gobberkal Village, Taluka Sindhanur and the house

(suit properties) were standing in the name of late Nagappa.

After his death the suit properties were mutated in the name of

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

Chidanand under Mutation No.10 dated 07.02.1980. It is

averred that defendant was married about 3-4 years back in

the year 1982 after the demise of late Nagappa, she was given

money and available gold during her marriage and from the

date of her marriage she is residing in matrimonial house. It is

stated that suit properties are in exclusive possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiff as a sole heir of late Chidanand, and

that the defendant has no right or interest over the suit

properties.

4. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the trial

Court, defendant appeared and filed her written statement

interalia denying that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of

Nagappa. In fact, it was contended that the plaintiff is legally

wedded wife of one Kariyappa S/o. Hanumanthappa of

Thondihal Village and their marriage was taken place in their

childhood and Kariyappa is still alive and during the substance

of said marriage, plaintiff cannot be styled as the wife of late

Nagappa and specifically denied about the plaintiff's status as

wife of Nagappa. Defendant contended that the defendant is

the only daughter of late Nagappa and she is owner in exclusive

possession of the suit property.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed

the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is proves that she is the legally wedded wife of late Sri. Nagappa?

2. Whether the plaintiff is proves that, out of her wedlock with the later Sri Nagappa, she had given birth to a son by name Chidananda?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the exclusive owner of the suit properties?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, on the date of filing of the suit she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is illegally interfering into her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties?

6. Whether the valuation of the suit made by the plaintiff for the purpose of payment of court fee is proper and the Court fee paid is proper and sufficient?

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?

8. What decree or order?"

6. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked

documents at Exs.P1 to P36. On the other hand, the defendant

examined herself as DW1, examined two other witnesses as

DWs.2 and 3, and got marked document at Ex.D1.

7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral

and documentary evidence, has held that:

i. Plaintiff has proved that she is legally wedded wife

of late Nagappa;


     ii.     that the plaintiff has proved that from the wedlock

             with   late   Nagappa      she    has     a    son   by    name

             Chidanand;

     iii.    that the plaintiff failed to prove that she is the

exclusive owner of the suit schedule properties;

iv. that the plaintiff has proved that as on the date of

the suit she was in lawful possession and

enjoyment of the suit properties;

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

8. By its judgment and decree, the trial Court

dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the plaintiff

preferred appeal before the first Appellate Court and the first

Appellate Court while re-considering and re-appreciating the

entire oral and documentary evidence, concurred with the

judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff

is in second regular appeal before this Court.

9. Heard Sri Ananth S. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for

the appellant-plaintiff and Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel

for the respondent-defendant and perused the judgment and

decree of the Courts below.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend

that the Courts below have wrongly held that the respondent-

defendant is the Class-I heir of Nagappa, without considering

that the properties were transferred in the name of Chidanand

son of plaintiff and after the death of Chidanand, plaintiff being

the only heir of late Nagappa, she is entitled to be held as

absolute owner of the suit properties and that there arises

substantial question of law for consideration in this second

regular appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent would justify the judgment and decree passed by

the Courts below and would contend that there arises no

substantial question of law for consideration in the present

appeal to be dealt with under Section 100 of Code of Civil

Procedure against concurrent finding of fact and appeal is to be

dismissed.

12. The plaintiff approached the Court seeking

declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property

contending that the suit properties were mutated in the name

of Chidanand, the son of the plaintiff and Nagappa after the

death of Nagappa; the defendant at the time of her marriage

was provided with money and valuables she was entitled to and

after the death of Chidanand, plaintiff being a sole heir of

Chidanand has become the absolute owner in possession of the

suit properties. The defendant's contention is that plaintiff is

not the wife of Nagappa and defendant is the sole legal heir of

deceased Nagappa and entry of name of Chidanand in Revenue

Records would not confer rights on Chidanand or the plaintiff

who claims title from Chidanand. The plaintiff does not dispute

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

that the defendant is the daughter of Nagappa through his first

wife.

13. From the evidence and the material placed before

the Court, the Courts below arrived at a conclusion that the

plaintiff is the second wife of late Nagappa and defendant is the

daughter of late Nagappa. Against the said findings of facts the

defendant has not preferred any appeal.

14. What falls for consideration before this Court is

whether entry of name of Chidanand son of Hanumavva is

evidenced by any registered document, and in the absence of

any registered instrument, will mere entry creates any right.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SURAJ

BHAN AND OTHERS Versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

AND OTHERS1, has held that an entry in revenue records does

not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-

rights. Entries in revenue records have only "fiscal purpose"

i.e. payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on

the basis of such entries. Similar view is taken in the case of

(2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 186

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3707

SUMAN VERMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS2,

wherein, the Apex Court has held that the mutation entry

neither creates nor extinguishes title or ownership. The Apex

Court in the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER Versus

STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANOTHER3 has taken similar

view. The Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan vs.

Sonu Kumhar4 has held that the appearance of name in

revenue records does not make property as self acquired

property. In the case of AJIT KAUR ALIAS SURJIT KAUR

Versus DARSHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS,5 the Apex has held the

mutation entries cannot raise any presumption of title to

property.