This second appeal concerned a dispute over declaration of title regarding agricultural lands. The appellant claimed ownership through inheritance and purchase but failed to prove title due to inconsistencies in pleadings and documents. The court held the admission of possession was insufficient and allowed the lower court's decision.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:19186 RSA No. 2556 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2556 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJA SETTY, S/O LATE THOTTALA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A GULUVINA ATTIGUPPE, HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, K R NAGAR TQ, MYSORE DIST.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
BOTH ARE R/O BANASHANKARI STREET, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DIST.
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2023:KHC:19186 RSA No. 2556 of 2011
(BY SRI. G.K. BHAT, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SMT. SUDHA.D, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-B))
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.406/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.559/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) K.R.NAGAR AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
set-aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011
passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Mysuru
in R.A.No.406/2010.
file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C, K.R.Nagar. The said suit was filed for relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The said suit was earlier filed in
the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), K.R.Nagar and registered as O.S.No.287/1999 and it was filed seeking only relief of perpetual injunction. Thereafter, the plaintiff got amended the plaint seeking the relief of declaration of title. On the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, the said plaint came to be returned to the plaintiff and it was re-presented in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., K.R.Nagar and numbered as O.S.No.559/2007.
even though had no right to the suit schedule property,
filed a petition before the Tahsildar, K.R.Nagar in R.R.T.No.1/1999-2000 and the Tahsildar, without verifying the documents allowed the same and changed the Khata to the name of the defendant. Alleging that the defendant tress-passed into the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. Thereafter, as referred supra, he got amended the plaint and sought the relief of declaration of title.
Sri.Doddabasavayya Setty. She has stated that the boundaries are of the lands so purchased by her and also stated that she is in possession of the same, since the
NC: 2023:KHC:19186 RSA No. 2556 of 2011
date of purchase. She admitted filing of the petition in R.R.T.No.1/1999-2000 and the order passed by the Tahsildar. She has denied the correctness of the boundaries given in the plaint schedule.
Issues:
“(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing this suit?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendant with his
NC: 2023:KHC:19186 RSA No. 2556 of 2011
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
Additional Issues:
marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P45. The defendant’s Power of Attorney who is her husband has been examined as DW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D17.
The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has answered issue Nos.1 and 2 and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative and additional issue No.2 in the negative and held that the additional issue No.3 does not arise for consideration and decreed the suit.
by the Trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal in R.A.No.406/2010 before the I Additional District Judge, Mysuru (First Appellate Court).
NC: 2023:KHC:19186 RSA No. 2556 of 2011
(3) Whether the plaintiff has established his title and possession in respect of a property with the description given in the plaint schedule?
(5) Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court call for interference?”
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in this second appeal.
consider the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit by ignoring the admission made by D.W.1 that the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is entirely different
NC: 2023:KHC:19186 RSA No. 2556 of 2011
from the property mentioned in the written statement?”
plaintiff has been mutated in the index of lands ie., Form
No.5 (Ex.P6) to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.137/1A. He places reliance on Ex.P10 - M.R.No.99/1979-80 – mutation in his name in respect of Sy.No.137/1A measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and also Ex.P23
been mutated as he inherited the same after the death of his mother - Smt.Basamma to the property bearing Sy.No.137/1A measuring 1 acre 5 guntas.
plaintiff over the suit schedule property within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint.
purchased under sale deed dated 22.07.1985. The pleadings are inconsistent. Defendant purchased the property bearing survey No. 137/1 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and survey No. 138/3 measuring 28 guntas under sale deed at Ex.D.3 executed by mother of plaintiff, namely, Basamma and one Basappa Shetty – brother of said Basamma. He further contends that the name of the plaintiff came to be mutated to the suit schedule properties by virtue of mutation at M.R. No. 9/1999-00 (Ex.D.4) as per the order of the Tahsildar (Ex.P.26). He contends that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit schedule properties. The admissions contained in the cross-examination of D.W.1 is stray admission and on that basis no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit schedule properties. The first appellate Court taking into consideration of the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule properties.
East : Lands of Ramegowda West : Lands of Kullasetty South : Lands of Javaregowda and North : Lands of Ningappasetty
The plaintiff claimed that these properties are inherited by
him from his parents in paragraph No. 2 of his plaint. In the amended plaint at paragraph No. 2A he claims to have purchased the said two properties by virtue of sale deed dated 22.07.1985 from B. Swamy Shetty and Basava Shetty. The documents produced by the plaintiff are not consistent with his pleadings. In Ex.P.6 – index of lands the name of Basamma has been mutated to an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in survey No.137/1A and the name of
Basappa Shetty son of Annappa Shetty has been mutated to property bearing No. 137/B to an extent of 16 guntas. In Ex.P.23 – index of lands of survey No. 137/1A measuring 1 acre 5 guntas the name of plaintiff has been mutated as he inherited the same from his mother Basamma wife of Thottalappa. Mother of plaintiff Basamma wife of Thottalappa and her brother Basappa Shetty son of Dodda Basavaiah have executed sale deed dated 08.08.1978 (Ex.D.3) in favour of defendant – Chikkamma in respect of property bearing survey No. 137/1A measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and property bearing survey No.138/3 measuring 20 guntas. Even though an extent of 1 acre 5 guntas is entered in the name of said Basamma – mother of the plaintiff, she has executed sale deed to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that he has inherited 1 acre 5 guntas of land in survey No. 137/1A. Mother of plaintiff sold the said property bearing survey No. 137/1A measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. Therefore, plaintiff’s mother is not having any title to the said property which was sold
under sale deed – Ex.D.3 to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot inherit any property from his mother in survey No. 137/1A measuring 1 acre 5 guntas. The name of defendant has been mutated to the property bearing survey No. 137/1A measuring 1 acre 5 guntas under MR No. 9/1999-2000 (Ex.D4). Therefore the plaintiff is not having any title over the property bearing survey No. 137/1A measuring 1 acre 5 guntas as claimed by him.
Annappa Shetty. The plaintiff has purchased the suit survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas from one Swamy Shetty and Basava Shetty son of Kenga shetty. There are no documents produced by the plaintiff to show that his vendors were owners having possession over the property bearing survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas. The documents produced by the plaintiff in Ex.P.6 show that one Basava Shetty son of Annappa Shetty is the owner of survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas. Therefore the plaintiff has failed to prove that his vendor is having title for sale of property bearing No. 137/1B measuring 16 gunts. The defendant has not purchased the property bearing survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas. Name of the defendant came to be mutated to property bearing survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas as per order passed by the Tahsildar (Ex.P.26) and M.R. 9/1999-2000 (Ex.D.4). The defendant has also not produced any documents to claim his title over property bearing survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas. The properties purchased by the defendant under Ex.D.3 sale deed are
survey No. 137/1B measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and survey No. 138/3 measuring 20 guntas. Said sale deed does not include property bearing survey No. 137/1B measuring 16 guntas. Considering all these aspects the first appellate Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule properties.
“£Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀAvÀ Dgï.n.¹. 137 : 1 (J)UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è : CAzÀgÉ ¤r- 3 gÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAqÀ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVzÉ. ¥ÉÆÃqÀÄ «AUÀqÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ £ÀªÀÄä PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ¥ÉÆÃqÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ gÁªÉÄÃUËqÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ PÀļÀîAiÀıÉnÖAiÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ, zÀQëtPÉÌ eÁgÉÃUËqÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¤AUÀ¥Àà±ÉnÖ gÀªÀgÀ, d«ÄãÀÄ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀÄ M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÉ ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢UÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°è®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÉ
ZÉPÀÄ̧A¢AiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢ ªÀÄAd±ÉnÖ G¼ÀĪÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwzÁÝjAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß PÀæAiÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ §¸ÀªÀÄä ªÁ¢AiÀÄ vÁ¬Ä JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 138:3 PÉÌ £ÁªÀÅ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÉÃjzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”
“19. Section 110 of the Evidence Act reads thus:
“110. Burden of proof as to ownership.- When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”
20. It embodies the principle that possession of a property furnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and casts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership. The presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.”
to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit schedule properties. Accordingly substantive question of law is answered in affirmative and appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
GH/LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the admission by the defendant's witness that the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property establishes the appellant's lawful possession and title to the property.
Whether the plaintiff (appellant) has successfully proved his title over the suit schedule properties.
Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the suit by rejecting the appellant's claim of title and possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. Vs. Collector and OthersReferred¶20
(2003) 3 SCC 472 · Who else cites this
Sri Manja Setty
Smt Chikkamma
Shivashankar Amannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
