have carefully considered the recital in the Sale Deed dated 05.12.1955, and perusal of the same would indicate that mother of original plaintiff Chennamma, W/o. Feddappa, purchased the land from one Smt. Kariyavva W/o Nagappa. It is also disclosed from Sale Deed-Exhibit P1 that subject matter of the land reflected in the said Sale Deed as Survey No.20/4. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that original plaintiff is in possession of the land bearing Survey Nos.20/6 and 20/7 and there is mistake crept in the registered Sale Deed. Having taken note of the fact, it is well-settled principle that, in a suit for declaration of title and other consequential relief, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove their title insofar as suit schedule property. This Court in the case of HULLAPPA v. STATE OF KARNTAKA THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958 held that in a suit for declaration of title, unless the plaintiff produces the document of title, civil court cannot grant declaration on the basis of revenue records and said fundamental principle of law has to be kept in mind by the Courts. In view of the law declared by this Court in the aforementioned case and applying the same to the case on
