Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.Amarappa And Ors vs Sri.Sugappa @ Sugarappa And Ors on 10 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
RSA No. 200374 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200374 OF 2018
(DEC, PER & ROR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K. AMARAPPA S/O AYYANNA,
AGE:79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAKTALPETH, RAICHUR,
NOW AT RODALBANDA VIA HATTI,
TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
2. SRI SIDDALINGAPPA S/O AYYANNA,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAKTALPETH, RAICHUR.
3. SRI SHARANAPPA S/O AYYANNA,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by SWETA R/O. MAKTALPETH, RAICHUR.
KULKARNI
Location: High
Court of ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka (BY SRI ARUN CHOWDAPURKAR, ADV. FOR A2 AND A3)
AND:
1. SRI SUGAPPA @ SUGARAPPA S/O NAGANNA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
PAN SHOP AND BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.10-6-52, MAKTALPETH,
RAICHUR-584 101.
2. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O NAGANNA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
RSA No. 200374 of 2018
R/O. H.NO.10-6-52, MAKTALPETH,
RAICHUR-584 101.
3. SRI DEVANNA @ DEVINDRAPPA S/O NAGANNA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.10-6-52, MAKTALPETH,
RAICHUR-584 101.
4. SRI CHANDAN KHANDEWAL,
S/O SRI KRISHNAN KHANDEWAL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H. NO.L.281, NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI D.P. AMBEKAR ADV. FOR R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.08.2018 PASSED BY III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT RAICHUR IN RA NO.27/2018, CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC III AT
RAICHUR IN O.S. NO. 205/2010 DATED 23.11.2017 AND
DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS/ PLAINTIFFS WITH
COST THROUGHOUT BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
RSA No. 200374 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court in
regular second appeal assailing the concurrent findings of
facts of the Courts below, whereby, the suit seeking for
declaration and injunction was dismissed by the courts
below.
2. Parties herein are referred as per the ranking
before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Suit property is Sy.No.19/10 (herein referred to
as "suit land" for short), suit seeking for declaration that
the plaintiff are the absolute owner of the suit land, for
perpetual in further and for rectification of the entire in the
revenue records of suit land. Claim at the plaintiff is that
suit land has fallen to share of Ayanna-father of the
plaintiff and his death, name of the plaintiff appeared in
revenue records up to 1978-79. That in the year 1980
defendant No.1 got his name entered in the revenue
records contending that he got the suit land through
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
partition deed, which came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff only in August 2009 hence the suit.
4. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the
Trial Court, defendants appeared and filed their written
statement interalia contending and admitted the partition
of the family properties between the father of the
defendants and father of the plaintiffs, the defendants
denied that the suit land had fallen to the share of father
of the plaintiffs. The specific averment of the defendants is
that out of the agricultural lands in total, 13 acres 1 gunta
was allotted to the family of the plaintiffs and 12 acres 27
guntas was allotted to the family of the defendants
including the suit land, which is measured 2 acres 11
guntas.
5. The Trial Court on basis of the pleadings framed
the following issues:
1. "Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit
property fell to share of father of plaintiff in family
partition and as such plaintiffs are became the
absolute owner of it?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration
as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual
injunction against the defendants as prayed for?
5. What order or decree?"
6. In order to substantiate their claim plaintiff
No.1 examined himself as PW1 and another witness as
PW2 and got documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On the other
hand defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and
defendant No.2 examined himself as DW2 and got marked
documents at Ex.D1 to Ex.D103.
7. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,
oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit.
8. Aggrieved the plaintiffs preferred appeal before
the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court
concurred with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
while re-appreciating and re-analyzing the entire oral and
documentary evidence.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
9. Heard Sri Arun Chowdapurkar, learned counsel
for the appellants, Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri D.P. Ambekar learned
counsel for respondent No.4.
10. The undisputed facts of the case are that:
1. Father of the defendants and father of the
plaintiffs are bothers.
2. That there was a partition in respect of the
family properties between Ayyanna father of
the plaintiffs and Naganna father of the
defendants.
3. The name of the plaintiffs appeared in the
revenue records in years upto 1978-79.
4. The defendants name appeared in the revenue
records from 1980.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the Courts below having held that the plaintiffs
have prove that the suit property is fallen to the share of
the father of the plaintiffs and has refused to grant the
relief of declaration on the ground that the plaintiffs have
not produced any document of title for the Court to grant
declaration. Learned counsel placed reliance on admission
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
of DW2 to the effect that the witness admitted that the
suit land which was standing in the name of the plaintiffs
was transferred in the name of defendant No.1 and
contend that the admission of DW2 would establish the
fact that the suit land has fallen to the share of the
plaintiff No.1 and by mere transfer of the suit land in the
name of the defendant No.1 would not confer any right on
defendant No.1 to disentitle the relief of declaration in
favour of the plaintiffs.
12. The law is well settled the revenue entries does
not confer any right in favour of the parties, when a
plaintiffs are seeking for declaration of their title through a
partition, it has to be evidenced by a title deed. The
plaintiffs have to fall or win on his own case and not on the
weakness of the defendants.
13. The specific contention of the defendant No.1 in
his written statement is that the suit land had fallen to the
share of the defendants. In the cross examination which
is not of defendant No.1 but of defendant No.3 who is
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
DW2, though states that plaintiff No.1 has transferred the
suit land in the name of defendant No.1 and the same
transfer is not evidenced by any document, the fact
remains that the plaintiffs are seeking for a declaration
through a partition which is effected between the father of
the plaintiffs and father of the defendants, when plaintiffs
are seeking for a declaration the same should be
evidenced by document of title as stated supra.
14. The revenue records is a not a document of title
to confer a declaration and to prove the aspect that the
suit land was fallen to the share their father and stray
admission of DW2 would not enable the plaintiffs for
entitlement of declaration based on the revenue records.
The Courts below have rightly appreciated the entire oral
and documentary evidence and dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff for declaration.
15. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit
land has fallen to the share of their father in family
partition by placing any cogent and material evidence and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3735
in the absence of any legal right or existence, which the
plaintiffs have failed to established before the Courts
below, the Courts below were justified in declining
declaration based on the revenue entries. The judgment
and decree of the Courts below against the concurrent
findings of fact does not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
I. The second appeal is hereby dismissed.
II. The judgment and decree of the Courts
below stands confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AT
