Regular first appeal dismissed against a decree in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The High Court held that the registered sale deed is valid, revenue entries do not create titles, and the trial court correctly decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.
Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2327 OF 2006 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka
ALL ARE RESIDING AT THYAGADAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK PINCODE - 562 123.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
PINCODE - 562 123.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.M.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R8; R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; R1 DECEASED, R2 TO R4 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R1)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER MEMORANDUM OF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECRE DT.09.08.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.486/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The defendant is before this Court impugning the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 passed in O.S No.486/1997 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that they are the absolute owners of the schedule property and restraining the defendants by way of permanent injunction from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
had acquired the schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 15.04.1956. After alienating the suit schedule property by Gangaiah in favour of Narashimaiah, Gangaiah had no manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property and the defendants being the wife and children have also not acquired any right over the schedule property. The revenue records were standing in the name of Narashimaiah and after his death it was mutated in the name of plaintiff No.1.
to knock off the valuable property submitted applications making false claim over the same. The village accountant of Thyagadahalli also colluded with the defendants and managed to manipulate the revenue records to change the same in the names of the defendants. The plaintiffs opposed for the same and filed an application to restore their names in the revenue records. The revenue Inspector conducted the spot mahazar which clearly disclose that the village accountant had mutated the names of the defendants without any basis. However, since the revenue entries were not restored in the names of the plaintiffs and they were informed to approach the Civil Court,
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the defendants by their highhanded acts. The defendants who are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property are enjoying the same in their own rights. The plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest and they are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Issues
1. "Whether the plaintiffs prove that Late Sri. Narashimaiah purchased the suit land from late Sri.Gangaiah through sale deed dated
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
06.03.1959 and put in possession as alleged in plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove they are now in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of suit land as absolute owner as alleged?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove the interference by the defendants?
4. Whether defendants prove that the suit property is the estate of Late. Sri. Gangaiha and they have succeeded the suit property through succession as alleged by them?
5. Whether defendants prove that they are in actual and peaceful possession of suit land?
6. Whether suit is properly valued and proper court fee is paid?
7. What relief plaintiffs are entitled?
8. What order or decree?
Additional Issues
1. Whether defendant No.4 to 7 proves that suit is barred by limitation?
examined DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 18 in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these material on record, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3, 6 and
7 in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative and
additional issues No.1 in the negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that they are the absolute owners in possession of the property and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
Admittedly, the defendants are the wife and children of Gangaiah and after his death, the defendants have succeeded to his interest. Ex.P.2 styled as sale deed produced by the plaintiffs is a disputed document. The description of Gangaiah as son of Hanumaiah disclose that it is a concocted document. The revenue records stood in the name of Gangaiah and thereafter in the names of the defendants. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties in proper perspective. It has committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Therefore, the appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with costs.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
referred to as son of Hanumaiah, it is later corrected as he is son of Muniyappa. The said correction was carried out in the sale deed itself and there is an endorsement to that effect. When the title over the schedule property was transferred from Gangaiah in favour of Narashimaiah, Gangaiah could not have retained any interest over the property. When Gangaiah himself had no right over the property, the question of defendants succeeding to the property after his death does not arise. The plaintiffs have led the oral and documentary evidence before the Court which clearly demonstrated that Narashimaiah had purchased the property and after his demise the plaintiffs being the legal representatives have succeeded to his interest and they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, rightly came to the conclusion and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merits. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by Lrs. and others1 in support of his contention that the revenue entries would not create any right over the immovable property.
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above points is in the 'Negative' for the following reasons:
REASONS
1 ILR 1998 KAR 707
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
Gangaiah sold the schedule property in favour of Narashimaiah i.e., husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs under the sale deed dated 06.03.1959 produced as per Ex.P.2. This fact is disputed by the defendants.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
pertaining to the schedule property discloses that initially the property was standing in the name of one Thimmappa. Thereafter, it was mutated in the name of Gangaiah and thereafter in the name of Narasimahaiah. Ex.P.4 is the Encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.01.1959 to 31.03.1959 where there is reference to the sale deed Ex.P.2. Ex.P.5 is the survey settlement akarbandh in respect of the schedule property. Ex.P.8 being the Record of rights in respect of the schedule property initially standing in the name of Gangaiah and only during 1995-96 it was mutated in the name of the defendants. The suit came to be filed in the year 1997 and as per Ex.P.6 there was a dispute regarding the entries in the revenue record and the revenue Inspector had also drawn a mahazar. Therefore, no much importance could be attached to such revenue entries which was effected without any basis. It is the settled proposition of law that the revenue entries would not either create or extinguish the right over the immovable property. When there is absolutely no reason to ignore Ex.P.2 which is a registered sale deed dated 06.03.1959, which is also referred to in the Encumbrance certificate, I do not find any reason to accept the contentions of the defendants that
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
Gangaiah was having interest over the schedule property and after his death the same was inherited by the defendants. The oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court do not substantiate the contention of the defendants in any manner.
point in the ' Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed .
(ii) The judgment and decree dated 09.08.2006 passed in O.S No.486/1997 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bengaluru Rural district, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.
RFA No. 2327 of 2006
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with
copy of this judgment.
Sd/JUDGE
SKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?
Whether the sale deed executned between Gangaiah and Narashimaiah is a concocted document despite the description error in parentage?
Whether revenue entries standing in the name of defendants create right over the immovable property to extinguish the title of plaintiffs?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balwant Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by Lrs. and othersReferred¶15
Balwant Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by Lrs. and others
1 ILR 1998 KAR 707Referred¶92
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. H. Siddamma
Sri. Marigowda
Sri Maheshwarappa
Smt. Gangamma
Muniyappa
Hanumantharayappa
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
