Karnataka High Court
Jahangir Hussan Choukave vs Jabbar @ Jabbir S/Ol .Isaak Makanadar on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180
RSA No. 100523 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100523 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-)
BETWEEN:
JAHANGIR HUSSAN CHOUKAVE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BORGAON VILLAGE-591201,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
JABBAR @ JABBIR S/O ISAAK MAKANDAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BORGAON VILLAGE-591201,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC PRAYING TO ADMIT THE
APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
ALLOW THE APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
SHELAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
PASSED IN R.A. NO.45/2016 DATED: 15.03.2021 PASSED BY THE
DHARWAD BENCH
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT AT CHIKODI AND THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHIKODI IN O.S.
NO.134/2013 DATED: 06.08.2016 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180
RSA No. 100523 of 2022
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the
plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated
15.03.2021 in RA No.45/2016 on the file of Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi (for short, hereinafter referred
to as 'First Appellate Court), dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2016 in
OS No.134/2013 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Chikodi, (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 the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit schedule property as the same was
granted in favour of father of the plaintiff during 1988-89.
It is further stated that, the defendant has interfered with
the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiff has
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180
filed suit in OS No.134/2013, seeking declaration and
consequential relief.
4. On service of notice, the defendant entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement denying
the grant made by the Government in favour of the father
of the plaintiff. It is also stated in the written statement
that, the brother of the defendant - Mustaq continued in
possession of the suit schedule property for more than 10
years and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court based on pleadings, has
formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to
establish their case, plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and
produced 06 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1
to P6. Defendant has examined three witnesses as DW1 to
DW3 and got marked 20 documents as Ex.D1 to D20.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record by its judgment and decree dated 06.08.2016,
dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has preferred appeal in RA No.45/2016 before the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180
First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the
defendant. The First Appellate Court after considering the
material on record by its judgment and decree dated
15.03.2021 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed
the judgment and decree in OS No.134/2013. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this
Regular Second Appeal.
7. I have heard Sri. C.S. Shettar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant.
8. It is submitted by Sri. C.S. Shettar, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that, both the Courts
below have committed an error in not considering the fact
that, Panchayat has granted the suit schedule property in
favour of the father of the plaintiff and same was admitted
by the defendant in the written statement and therefore,
the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires
interference.
9. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, the plaintiff has filed
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180
suit seeking relief of declaration based on the resolution
passed by the Panchayat as per Ex.P.2 and P.3.
Admittedly, no sale deed has been executed by the
Panchayat in favour of the father of the plaintiff and
therefore, following the declaration of law made by this
Court in the case of Hullappa Vs. The State of
Karnataka1, wherein it is held that, in a suit for
declaration of title unless the plaintiff produces the
document of title, the Civil Court cannot grant declaration
on the basis of revenue records.
10. In that view of the matter, both the Courts
below have rightly considered the material on record and
dismissed the suit as the plaintiff fails to produce the
relevant document to establish his right over the suit
schedule property and therefore, no interference is called
for in this appeal as the appellant has not made out a case
for formulation of substantial question of law as required
under Section 100 of CPC.
ILR 2012 KAR 4958
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4180
11. In the result, appeal fails.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
CT-MCK
