Karnataka High Court

Smt Mangalamma vs Sri Ramakrishnaiah on 2 June, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:18587
                                                      RSA No. 1462 of 2014


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1462 OF 2014

                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT MANGALAMMA
                   W/O LATE CHALUVAIAH,
                   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                   R/AT VRUSHABHAVATHIPURA,
                   ITTAMADU POST,
                   BIDADI HOBLI,
                   RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109
                                                              ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:
Digitally signed
by SUNITHA K       1.     SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S                         S/O THIPPARAIAH,
Location: HIGH            AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          2.     SRI THIPPARAIAH
                          SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

                   2(A) KEMPAMMA,
                        W/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
                        AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

                   2(B) CHALUVARAJU
                        S/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:18587
                                      RSA No. 1462 of 2014


HC-KAR




2(C) SHIVARAJ
     S/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

2(D) NARAYANA
     S/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

2(E)   SUNANDA
       D/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

2(F)   CHIKKAMMA
       D/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

2(G) LEELA
     D/O LATE THIPPARAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

       ALL ARE R/AT THIMMEGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE,
       ITTAMADU POST, BIDADI HOBLI,
       RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. S RAJU & ASSTS.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2(C-G)
    V/O DATED 08.04.2025 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED
AGAINST R2(A & B)]

       THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT     &   DECREE    DTD     6.9.2014   PASSED    IN
R.A.NO.15/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE    THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 3.1.14
PASSED IN OS.NO.170/2007       ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA.
                               -3-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:18587
                                         RSA No. 1462 of 2014


HC-KAR




        THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant,

challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2014,

passed in R.A.No.15/2014 by the learned Principal Senior

Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based

on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was

the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal

are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for

declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory

injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that about 30

years back, the Government of Karnataka granted a

NC: 2025:KHC:18587

HC-KAR

vacant site in Khaneshumari No.376, measuring 30X40 ft,

situated at Vrushabhavathipura village of Bidadi Hobli, in

favour of the plaintiff, who being a widow, and accordingly

the khata was transferred in the plaintiff's name. It is

contended that the plaintiff became the absolute owner

and is in peaceful possession, and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property. After the grant, the plaintiff put a shed

in the suit property. About six months ago, the said shed

was in a dilapidated condition and had collapsed; and at

that time, the plaintiff lost the original grant certificate

issued in her favour. The defendants, taking undue

advantage of the plaintiff's absence in the village,

defendant No.1, trespassed into the suit schedule property

and unauthorizedly dug the foundation. The plaintiff

requested the defendants not to interfere, but the

defendants did not heed to the plaintiff's request. Hence,

a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file an instant

suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

NC: 2025:KHC:18587

HC-KAR

3.1. The defendants filed a written statement denying

the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the

plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit

schedule property. It is contended that the Government

granted the suit schedule property in favour of defendant

No.2, and defendant No.2 dug and laid foundation for

construction over the said property. It is contended that,

defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

suit property. Defendant No.2 is paying tax regularly and

khata stands in the name of defendant No.2. It is stated

that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit

schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

parties, framed the relevant issues.

3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case,

examined herself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW.2

and marked 26 documents as Exs.P1 and P26.

Conversely, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1,

NC: 2025:KHC:18587

HC-KAR

examined three witnesses as DWs.2 to 4, and marked 30

documents as Exs.D1 to D30. The trial Court, after

recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on the

assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed

the suit of the plaintiff with costs. It is declared that the

plaintiff is the absolute owner and in lawful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Consequently, it

restrained the defendants permanently from interfering

with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff

over the suit schedule property. The trial Court also

directed by way of mandatory injunction to demolish the

construction put up in the suit schedule property.

3.4. Defendant No.1 and the Legal heirs of

defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.170/2007, preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.15/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Senior

Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara.

3.5. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessing the

verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal vide

NC: 2025:KHC:18587

HC-KAR

judgment dated 06.09.2014 and set aside the judgment

and decree passed by the trial Court, and consequently,

dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, aggrieved

by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.15/2014,

has filed this regular second appeal.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that

the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule

property. The suit schedule property was granted in

favour of the plaintiff by issuing a grant certificate. He

submits that the house property existing in the suit

schedule property was in a dilapidated condition, and the

said grant certificate was misplaced. Hence, the plaintiff

was unable to produce the grant certificate. He submits

that the first Appellate Court has not re-appreciated

correctly, the entire evidence on record, and committed an

error in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on these

grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:18587

HC-KAR

6. Perused the records, and considered the

submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of

title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The

plaintiff, to prove the title over the suit schedule property,

has not produced any title deeds to establish the

ownership over the suit schedule property. Though, the

plaintiff has contended that the Government has granted

the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, the

plaintiff has not produced a grant certificate. Though the

plaintiff has contended that the original grant certificate

was misplaced, nothing prevented the plaintiff from

obtaining the certified copy of the grant certificate from

the revenue authorities. Admittedly, the suit is one for

declaration of title. The plaintiff, except producing the

revenue records, has not produced title deeds. It is a

well-settled law that a declaration of title based on the

revenue entries cannot be granted. The first Appellate

Court, placing reliance on the judgment passed by this

NC: 2025:KHC:18587

HC-KAR

Court in the case of GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR AND

ORS VS. NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND AND ORS reported

in ILR 2008 KAR 1170, has held that revenue records do

not form a document of title, it merely raise a presumption

of possession. The plaintiff has failed to produce a copy of

the grant certificate to prove her ownership over the suit

schedule property. The first Appellate Court has rightly

passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in

the impugned judgment or any substantial question of law

that arises for consideration in this appeal.

8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.


                 ii. The judgment and decree passed by
                    the   first Appellate   Court    is hereby
                    confirmed.

                     No order as to the costs.
                           - 10 -
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:18587



HC-KAR