Karnataka High Court
Basavaraja vs Sri. Basappa @ Parushappa on 25 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
RSA No. 1210 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1210 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJA,
D/O SRI. MADIWALARA MUDIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2. SRI. MUDIYAPPA,
S/O SRI. HANUMA AGASARA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS.
3. SRI. NAGAPPA,
S/O SRI. HANUMA AGASARA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
4. SRI. NINGAPPA,
S/O SRI. HANUMA AGASARA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 5. SRI. SHIVU,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O LATE SRI. SIDDAPPA & SMT. KENCHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
6. SMT. LALITHAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 6 ALL ARE
RESIDING AT DODDA BATHI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
RSA No. 1210 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SRI. BASAPPA @ PARUSHAPPA,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
REVANAPPA,
S/O RANGAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
2. SMT. SAVAKKA,
W/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
3. SRI. RANGAPPA,
S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. SMT. SIDDAMMA,
D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
5. SRI. VIJAYA,
S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
6. KUM. REKHA,
D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT DODDA BATHI VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
RSA No. 1210 of 2023
HC-KAR
DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.337/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent
finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration,
mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, it is
specifically pleaded that originally the suit schedule property
was granted to the propositus of the plaintiffs' family by name
Hanumappa Agasara, who died long back. The said Hanumappa
had five sons by name Mudiyappa, Nagappa, Ningappa,
Siddappa and Ramappa. Amongst these, Siddappa and
Ramappa are no more and plaintiff No.1 is the son of
Mudiyappa. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and
their ancestors have come to Doddabathi Village from
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
Devarahalli Village for their livelihood and at that time, the
grandfather of the plaintiffs Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara
orally permitted the father of defendant No.2 to reside in the
suit schedule property on the basis of permissive possession
and that neither defendant No.2 nor his father is the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property. That being so, defendant
No.2 by colluding with defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule
property to defendant No.1 by executing a registered sale deed
on 04.07.2008. The said act of the defendants was resisted by
the plaintiffs' father by issuing a telegraphic notice, but the
same was of no use. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have got
changed the khatha of the suit schedule property into the name
of defendant No.1 and without any right they are claiming the
same. The plaintiffs have also issued the quit notice on
15.04.2010 to defendant No.1, but defendant No.1 did not
comply with the same. Hence, they filed the suit. The Court
earlier disposed of the suit on 13.10.2015. Hence, the plaintiffs
had filed an appeal against the judgment and decree and the
same was set aside by the Appellate Court and the matter was
remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration giving
an opportunity to lead further evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
4. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their
written statement denying the very title of the plaintiffs. The
defendant No.1 contended that Hanumappa Agasara was not
having any right in respect of the property and the property is
also not related to the plaintiffs or their family and permissive
possession of defendant No.2 is also a created story with an
intention to knock off the property belonging to defendant
No.2. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that the suit
schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant No.2
and since the lifetime of his grandfather by name Hanumappa
@ Hanumajja, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property more than 50 years and
defendant No.2 had executed a sale deed with respect to the
suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 on
04.07.2008 and thereafter, a registered correction deed also
came into existence on 23.02.2010 and hence defendant No.1
claims that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property as the absolute owner. The defendant No.2
denied the entire plaint averments made in the plaint and
contended that the property not belongs to the plaintiffs.
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of
both the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to
lead evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, answered all the
issues in the negative considering the case of the plaintiffs and
the defendants in paragraph No.12. The Trial Court also
discussed with regard to the documents, which have been
produced by the plaintiffs at Exs.P.4, 5, 18, 20, 21 and 23 to
27 and comes to the conclusion that the documents which have
been relied upon are all the revenue documents and not
produced any document with regard to the title of Hanumappa
@ Hanuma Agasara. The Trial Court also taken note of the
contention of the defendants and producing of document in
paragraph No.15 and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
have failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property.
They are not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction and
permanent injunction and also with regard to the title is
concerned and dismissed the suit.
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, an
appeal is filed and the First Appellate Court having considered
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points whether
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires
interference and whether the Trial Court has erred in holding
that revenue records are not title deeds of the plaintiffs. The
First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, particularly in
paragraph No.28 comes to the conclusion that it is settled
principle of law that pleadings are to be proved by production
of cogent oral and satisfactory documentary evidence. On
perusal of Exs.P.1 to 32, no documents are coming forth before
the Court to show that Hanuma Agasara has valid, legal title
over the suit schedule property. It is settled principle of law
that revenue records do not prove the title of the plaintiffs over
the suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs are not the
owners of the suit schedule property, the question of declaring
the registered sale deed dated 04.07.2008 as illegal and void
ab-initio does not arise in respect of the sale deed of the
defendants is concerned. It also comes to the conclusion that
in the absence of cogent evidence before the Court with regard
to the title as well as the relief sought, the question of granting
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
the relief does not arise and the Trial court has not committed
any error.
7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the
present second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that inspite of documents are produced before the
Trial Court that the suit property was granted to the father of
the appellants i.e., Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara, both the
Courts committed an error and failed to consider the
documents Exs.P.4 and 5 i.e., house list register and tax
demand register. The learned counsel also vehemently contend
that both the Courts failed to take note of the fact that the
father of the appellants Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara had
given the suit schedule property to the father of defendant No.2
on permissive possession and hence, it requires interference of
this Court to admit the appeal and frame substantial question
of law.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also on perusal of the material on record, the very specific
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
pleading of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit
schedule property was granted to the propositus of the
plaintiff's family by name Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara. But
to prove the said fact, nothing is placed on record about
granting of property and apart from that, no title deeds are also
produced before the Court. The Trial Court in detail taken note
of the case of the plaintiffs and defendants in paragraph No.12
and in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 comes to the conclusion
that the plaintiffs except relying upon the revenue documents,
not produced any document and comes to the conclusion that
when the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit
schedule property, the question of granting the relief of
declaration as well as consequential relief of mandatory
injunction and permanent injunction does not arise.
10. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.28
considering the documents of Ex.P.1 to 32, which have been
produced, comes to the conclusion that the same are not in
respect of the legal title over the schedule property in respect
of the claim made by the plaintiffs to show that the property
originally belongs to Hanumappa @ Hanuma Agasara. When
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
the title documents are not placed on record, the question of
granting the relief as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants does not arise and the materials are also very clear
that except producing the documents of Exs.P.4 and 5 i.e.,
house list register and tax demand register, nothing is placed
on record and also with regard to the permissive possession is
concerned also, nothing is placed on record. On the other hand,
the defendants have placed the documents of sale deed interse
between defendant Nos.1 and 2. When the suit is filed for the
relief of declaration, the plaintiffs must stand on their own legs
and not on the weakness of the defendants and the same
cannot be a reason to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiffs.
When such being the case, when the question of fact and
question of law are considered by the Trial Court as well as the
First Appellate Court with regard to the claim of the plaintiffs is
concerned, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and
frame any substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of
CPC.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48673
HC-KAR
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
