Karnataka High Court
Kempanna S/O. Balappa Meti vs Smt. Shivalingavva D/O. Ningappa ... on 21 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027
RSA No. 100472 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100472 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
KEMPANNA S/O. BALAPPA METI,
AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAJAPUR,
TALUK. GOKAK,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI - 591224.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A. P. MURARI AND SMT. DEEPA UDIYAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT. SHIVALINGAWWA
D/O. NINGAPPA JIDDIMANI,
AGE. 82 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAJAPUR,
TAL. GOKAK,
VN
BADIGER DIST. BELAGAVI - 591224.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally --------
signed by V N
BADIGER THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING
Date:
2025.01.23 TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
10:31:33 AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.45/2019 DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED BY THE
+0530
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.851/2010 DATED
04.11.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC.,
GOKAK, DISMISSING THE SAID SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027
RSA No. 100472 of 2022
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the
judgment and decree dated 10.12.2020 in RA No.45/2019 on
the file I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court), dismissing the
appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated
04.11.2019 in OS No.851/2010 on the file of Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'Trial Court') dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is averred in the plaint that the land bearing
Sy.No.83/7+13/1B measuring 30 guntas of Rajapur, Gokak
Taluk was belonged to father of the plaintiff-Balappa and
accordingly the plaintiff has sought for relief of declaration with
consequential relief of permanent injunction against the
defendant on the ground that the defendant is claiming the
right over the suit property and interfered with the possession
of the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff has filed OS No.851/2010.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027
4. On service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement alleging that
the mother of the defendants-Yallawwa has purchased portion
of the land in Sy.Nos.83/12, 83/15 and 83/7+3 of Rajapur
village as per registered sale deed dated 22.05.1962 and
accordingly, disputed the title of the plaintiff and further
pleaded that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property.
5. The Trial Court based on pleadings has formulated
issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to
establish their case plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and
produced 19 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to
P19. Defendant has examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3
and marked 13 documents as Ex.D1 to D13.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record by judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019, dismissed
the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has
preferred RA No.45/2019 before the First Appellate Court and
same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court
after re-appreciating the material on record by its judgment
and decree dated 10.12.2020, dismissed the appeal and as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027
such confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.851/2010.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this
Regular Second Appeal.
7. Sri. A. P. Murari, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that both the Courts below have not
appreciated the material on record despite the fact that the
plaintiff has produced Ex.P1 to P6, record of rights from 1971-
2008 which clearly show the name of the father of the plaintiff-
Balappa and also it is submitted that the original propositus of
the land in question-Kempanna was the grand-father of the
plaintiff and therefore, countered the findings recorded by both
the Courts below.
8. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and on careful examination
of the averment made in the written statement wherein the
defendants have pleaded that the defendants are the owner of
the schedule property as the mother of the defendants as per
registered sale deed dated 22.05.1962, purchased the portion
of the suit property and the defendants have stated that they
are in the possession of the suit schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027
9. In the backdrop of the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant and on careful examination of the
plaint averments makes it clear that the plaintiff has not
described the suit property with exact extent and boundaries in
the plaint. In that view of the matter, it is well settled principle
in law that in a suit for declaration, burden is on the plaintiff to
establish its title in respect of the suit property and the revenue
entries cannot be relied upon to confer title to the plaintiff (see
(2014) 2 SCC 269). It is also to be noted that in a suit for
declaration, the plaintiff has to prove his title with cogent
evident to establish in the plaint with regard to description of
the property in question.
10. In the present case, on careful examination of the
plaint averments, no description of the property has been given
by the plaintiff and therefore, both the Courts below have
rightly arrived at a conclusion to decline relief of declaration. In
that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the plaintiff has
not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of
law as required under Section 100 of CPC and also findings
recorded by both the Courts below makes it clear that there is
no perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1027
both the Courts below. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere
with the same. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
