Plaintiffs who bought land from a vendor claiming government-grant title sued for declaration and injunction after revenue authorities claimed it as government land. The trial court dismissed the suit; on appeal, the High Court found no grant certificate was produced and only possession, not title, was shown. Appeal dismissed.
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: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
PIN - 577 527
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/O HEBBALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN: 577 527
D/O H K JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O HEBBALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 527
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH R V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P.MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R2 AND R3
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.13/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARAY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HOSADURGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
Government hill (gudda), North: Govt. gomala and South: Kenkere gadi , hereinafter referred to as 'suit property' and declaration and permanent injunction against defendants in respect of landed property.
not choose to file written statement but, defendants No.2 and 3 filed the written statement contending that Venkateshappa had no title in respect of the suit property for conveying the same to the plaintiffs and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
examined by name Lakshmanappa got examined himself as DW.1. and placed on record 7 documents comprising of RTC extracts and Mutation Register extract.
(1) The decision of the Court below is contrary to law, facts and evidence of the case. The entire approach of the Court below is manifestly illegal in as much as the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiffs has not been considered in proper perspective.
(ii) The Court below ought to have noted that right from 1964-65, the name of the Defendant No.1 has been shown as the person in possession of the property in the revenue records like pahani and RTC extracts. In column Nos. 9 and 12 of the RTC
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
extracts the name of Defendant No.1 Venkateshappa has been shown as the khathedar and anubhavdar in respect of 37 acres 14 guntas. The Court below ought to have noted that Sy. No.25 totally measures 40A 06G out of which 02 acres 32 guntas is phot kharab and the balance extent of 37 acres 14 guntas has been shown to be in the possession of Defendant No.1. Exhibits P-2 to P-13 produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs show that Venkateshappa was the owner in possession of the suit schedule property up to the date of sale. The entries in the revenue records have a presumptive value under Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964. It is seen from Exhibit D-2 that the name of Defendant No.1 has been shown to be the owner in column No.9 for the period 1975-76 onwards. The presumption arising out of the entries in the revenue records has not been rebutted by the defendants by adducing reliable evidence. The Appellants/Plaintiffs having purchased the property from Defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated:26-08-2009 have thus acquired valid title and possession over the suit schedule property. The Court below has completely failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellants/Plaintiffs.
(iii) The Court below ought to have noted that the original sale deed (Exhibit P-1) and the RTC Extracts
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
(Exhibits P-2 to P-13) produced on behalf of the Plaintiffs would clearly establish that Defendant No.1 was the owner in possession of the property and he had validly sold the suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiffs under Exhibit P-1.
(iv) The Court below ought to have noted that Exhibit P-14 (Village Form No.1) clearly establishes that suit schedule land was in continuous possession of defendant No.1 and it was never objected by defendants 2 and 3. Thus defendant No.1 had derived possessory title over the suit schedule property and it is not open to defendants 2 and 3 to deny the possession of defendant No.1. DW-1 in his evidence has admitted that in the akarband (Exhibit P-14), the name of Government was rounded off and the name of defendant No.1 was entered. He has also admitted that the name of defendant No.1 has been shown in the RTC extracts (Exhibits P-9 to P- 12) and that since 1969-70 till 2013-14, the name of defendant No.1 Venkateshappa is shown in respect of R.S. No.25. It is very clear from this that defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property at least from the year 1966 up to the date of sale. DW-1 in his evidence has also admitted that there are no records to show that any action was taken to correct the entries in the revenue records. He further stated in his deposition
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
that spot inspection was held in respect of Sy. No.25 and that the report has not been produced before the Court. The defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property for a period exceeding 30 years since 1966 and no steps have been taken at any point of time by the revenue department.
(v) The Court below ought to have noted that under Sec. 110 of the Indian Evidence Act when the Plaintiffs have shown to the Court that defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property, the burden of proving that he is not the owner would be on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. The defendants 2 and 3 have utterly failed to show that defendant No.1 was not the owner of the property. In these circumstances, when the Plaintiffs have proved that defendant No.1 was in possession of the property at least from the year 1966 till he sold the property in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Court below ought to have held that the Plaintiffs have established the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property by the defendant No.1. As such, the Plaintiffs having purchased the property from defendant No.1 have also acquired valid title to the suit schedule property. At any rate, the Court below ought to have held that defendants 2 and 3 had totally failed to establish that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 (predecessor in title of the Plaintiffs)
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
were not in possession of the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the Court below ought to have decreed the suit declaring that the Plaintiffs have established their title and possession of the suit schedule property and ought to have decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
(vi) Without prejudice to the contentions raised above, the Court below ought to have held that the defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule property till he sold the land in favour of the Plaintiffs under the registered sale deed dated 26-08-2009 and ought to have decreed the suit for permanent injunction. It is submitted that even if the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their valid title to the property, the Plaintiffs having established that they were in actual possession of the suit schedule property, the Court below ought to have decreed the suit for permanent injunction.
(vii) It is submitted that the reasons assigned by the Court below to dismiss the suit are wholly perverse, arbitrary, illegal and without any basis. At any rate, the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence made by the Court below is perverse, arbitrary and illegal.
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
the name of Venkateshappa appeared in the revenue records, Venkateshappa claimed the property by virtue of a grant, no grant certificate is admittedly filed by the plaintiffs nor by examining the Venkateshappa. Since Venkateshappa is a party and he was alive and suit was pending, it was bounden duty of the plaintiffs to summon and examine Venkateshappa to establish title possessed by him over the suit property and there is no effort made by the plaintiffs in this regard. Therefore, dismissal of the suit by trial Court for want of legal title in plaintiffs which is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
for consideration:
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
18. Regarding points No.1 to 3:
In the case on hand, Sakamma, the 1st plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 who has reiterated the plaint averments in her examination-in-chief. In her cross-examination, it is has been specifically questioned about the grant certificate. She has stated that she does not have any other document to prove the title other than what has been placed on record. She also admits that she has not produced the RTC extract pertaining to the suit property for the year 1970-71 to 1974-75.
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
Govt. hill (gudda), towards North Govt. gomala and towards South Kenkere village border. Further, she denied the suggestion that Venkateshappa did not possess the title to the suit property.
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
Venkateshappa as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs has thus resulted in non-establishing the title in Venkateshappa on behalf of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, the suit is one for declaration and permanent injunction.
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
on the basis of Ex.P1, plaintiffs cannot claim declaration that they are the owners of the property, moreso when the Government has contended that the land belongs to the Government.
NC: 2024:KHC:38629 RFA No. 686 of 2015
38. Regarding point No.4 : In view of the finding of
this Court on points No.1 to 3 as above, following order is
passed.
ORDER
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs proved legal title to the suit property derived from defendant No.1's grant-based title?
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to declaration and permanent injunction?
Whether the trial court's judgment and decree suffered from legal infirmity or perversity?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt R S Sakamma
H J Palaksha
H J Swapna
Sri Venkateshappa
The State of Karnataka represented by Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District
Tahsildar, Hosadurga Taluk, Hosadurga, Chitradurga District
V Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
