In this second appeal regarding title to agricultural land, the High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the lower courts' findings that the appellant failed to prove his case.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
K. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE MURADAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAHUNASUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MOHANA KUMARI, ADVOCATE SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA)
NC: 2023:KHC:38648 RSA No. 769 of 2014
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 09.01.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.138/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUNSUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.19/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) & JMFC AT HUNSUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2013, passed in R.A.No.138/2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2007, passed in O.S.No.19/2003 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hunsur.
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.13 measuirng 2 acres situated in Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hunsur Taluk. It is contended that the land bearing Sy.No.13 was granted to one Siddalingaiah by Deputy Commissioner, Mysore on 09.04.1965. Since then, the said Siddalingaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner. On 10.08.1983, the said Siddalingaiah executed a Will in favour of one K.Devappa bequeathing the suit schedule property. Siddalingaiah died in the year 1985. After his death, the Will came into force. It is contended that the plaintiff and his brother, viz. K.Devappa were living in joint family till the year 2001. There was a family arrangement between the plaintiff and K.Devappa on 31.03.2001. In the said arrangement, the plaintiff and his brother have partitioned the joint family properties by a registered partition deed dated 31.03.2001. In the said partition, 2 acres of land in
Sy.No.13 was fallen to the share of the plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said suit schedule property as the absolute owner. Plaintiff is paying land revenue in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants No.2 and 3 having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had made several representations to defendant No.2 to change the katha in his name. Defendant No.2 has not passed any order. It is contended that the plaintiff had obtained loan from Vysya Bank, Hunsur Branch on the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 issued an eviction notice on 27.06.2001. Defendant No.3 issued notice on 09.01.2003, calling upon the plaintiff to vacate and handover the suit schedule property. Thus cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
4. Defendants filed written statement denying that
land bearing Sy.No.13 measuring 4 acres of Hanchya
Village was granted by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of one Siddalingaiah and it is also denied that Siddalingaiah was in possession of the suit schedule property and he has executed a Will in favour of K.Devappa bequeathing the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit schedule property is a Government
land and plaintiff is trying to cultivate the suit land and cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. On these grounds sought for dismissal of the suit.
pleadings, framed the following issues:
plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got examined 5
witnesses as PW-2 to PW-6 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. Defendant No.2 - Tahsildar, Hunsur is examined as DW-1 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.D1 to D7. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in negative and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
NC: 2023:KHC:38648 RSA No. 769 of 2014
plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Will dated 10.08.1883, executed by Siddalingaiah in favour of K.Devappa who is none other than the brother of plaintiff. He also submits that there was partition between K.Devappa and the plaintiff. In the said partition, suit schedule property was fallen to the share of plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff became the absolute owner and accordingly revenue records were changed in the name of the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff in order to establish his ownership and possession over the
suit schedule property and also Will executed by Siddalingaiah in favour of K.Devappa, examined witnesses. The courts below have failed to appreciate the material evidence placed on record. He submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.
submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.
and the name of plaintiff is entered in the revenue records. Plaintiff has produced documents in support of his case. Ex.P1 is the deposition of plaintiff; Ex.P2 is the copy of ROR in respect of land bearing Sy.No.13; Ex.P3 is the patta book; Ex.P4 is the ROR; Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the partition deed effected between K.Devappa and plaintiff; Ex.P6 is the death certificate of Siddalingaiah; Ex.P7 is the Will alleged to have been executed by Siddalingaiah in favour of K.Devappa; Ex.P8 is the notice issued by the Tahsildar; Ex.P9 is the notice issued by the revenue inspector; Ex.P10 and 11 are Form No.5 and 6; Ex.P12 is the 'nil' encumbrance certificate. From the perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and his witnesses and the documents produced, the plaintiff has not produced the grant certificate alleged to have been issued in favour of Siddalingaiah. The plaintiff has not produced any record to show that the said land was granted in favour of Siddalingaiah. It is contended that Siddalingaiah has executed a Will in favour of K.Devappa bequeathing the
suit schedule property. Before proving the execution of Will, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the said land was granted in favour of Siddalingaiah, though the defendant in the written statement has denied that the land was granted in favour of Siddalingaiah.
Siddalingaiah by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore. Further the plaintiff has also not produced any records to show that as on the date of execution of alleged Will by Siddalingaiah in favour of K.Devappa, said Siddalingaiah was having valid title to bequeath the suit schedule property. Siddalingaiah had no right to bequeath the suit schedule property in favour of K.Devappa i.e., the brother of plaintiff. By virtue of alleged Will, K.Devappa has not acquired any title over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants have produced RORs., i.e., Ex.D1 to D7 in respect of the suit schedule property which discloses that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. The courts below considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property on the basis of alleged Will. The trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property and also failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendants and
NC: 2023:KHC:38648 RSA No. 769 of 2014
rightly dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the material on record, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit land was granted in favour of Siddalingaiah and said Siddalingaiah had no title to execute the Will in favour of K.Devappa and further the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Both the courts below considering the material placed on record, have rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.
I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2023:KHC:38648 RSA No. 769 of 2014
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
SD/JUDGE
RD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on an alleged grant to Siddalingaiah and a subsequent Will?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief and permanent injunction?
Whether the findings of the courts below that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession are sustainable?
K. HANUMANTHAPPA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
AShok S.Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
