Dismissed

Sri Boraiah v. Naganna

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024RSA/43/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought declaration and injunction over ancestral agricultural land, claiming partition from common ancestors. Both courts below dismissed the suit as no document of title was produced. The High Court held revenue entries confer no title and dismissed the appeal at admission for want of substantial question of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Boraiah Vs Naganna — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.43 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BORAIAH

¶9

S/O LATE KARIYAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶10

SANNA BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/ON LATE BORAIAH,

¶11

BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE BORAIAH,

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT NO 257, KAMANAKERE HUNDI ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 019.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

CHIKKATAYI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU, D/O LATE BORAIAH, R/AT #1246, BAVIKATTE BEEDI, RAMMANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570 019.

¶15

MANI,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O REVANNA, D/O LATE BORAIAH,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶19

R/AT NILASOGE VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI,

¶20

T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 124.

¶21

SRI NARASIMHAIAH

¶22

S/O LATE KAIYAIAH DEAD BY LRS.

¶23

MANGALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH.

¶24

MANIKANTA N., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH.

¶25

MANJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH.

¶26

ALL ARE R/AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI ROAD, RAMANAHALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 019.

¶27

DEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O GURU, R/AT #12, HOSAKERI BEEDI, RAMMANAHALLI, MYSURU - 570 019.

¶28

SMT. PUTTAMADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O LATE BETTAIAH, R/AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶31

KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 020.

¶32

SRI CHIKKA BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE BETTAIAH, R/AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 020.

¶33

…APPELLANTS

¶34

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

NAGANNA, S/O CHIKKABORAIAH, DEAD BY LRS.

¶37

CHOWDAMMA, W/O LATE NAGANNA. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶38

CHALUVARAJU S/O LATE NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶39

JAYASHREE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS D/O LATE NAGANNA R/AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570020.

¶40

SRI MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE BOARAIAH @ BORA R/AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶43

KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 020.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.247/2022 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.903/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU.

¶46

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2023 in R.A.No.247/2022 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.903/2015 dated 30.07.2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, parties are

¶50

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶53

It is of the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No.3-Bettaiah are the children of one late Kariyaiah of Rammanahalli village and plaintiff No.4 is the son of late Bettaiah.

¶54

It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule property is carved out in Sy. No.226/3 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Rammanahalli village, Mysuru Taluk, which belongs to the grandfather of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that as the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos.2 and therefore, as the defendants are interfering with the suit schedule property based on the MR.No.2/2081-82, the plaintiffs have presented O.S.No.903/2015 seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, inter alia, sought for mandatory injunction to restore the mutation entry in MR.No.02/2081-82.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶57

After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendant No.1 has contended that, the suit schedule property is being enjoyed by him through his common ancestors for more than three decades and accordingly, counter the averments made in the plaint with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. It is also contended by the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, defendant No.1 sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶58

Defendant No.2 remained absent and placed

¶59

ex-parte.

¶60

Based on the pleadings on record the Trial Court as formulated the issues for consideration.

¶61

In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined 2 witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2, and produced 17 documents and same were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P17. Defendants have examined DW-1 and got marked 13

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶64

documents and the same were marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D13.

¶65

The Trial Court after appreciating the material on record by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred R.A.No.247/2022 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 07.10.2023, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.903/2015. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶66

Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the appellants contended that, the plaintiffs have produced the revenue records before the Trial Court to establish that, the father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2-Kariyaiah was in cultivation of land in question and his father had acquired the suit schedule property in a partition from his father-

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶69

Bora@Cheluvabora and therefore, contended that, the plaintiffs have discharged their duty to establish their right over the suit schedule property and the said aspects have not been considered by both the Courts below and accordingly, the sought for interference of this Court.

¶70

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, undisputedly, the plaintiffs though contended that, their father-Kariyaiah had acquired the property through a partition deed, however, the said partition deed has not been produced before the Trial Court.

¶71

The suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and therefore, as the revenue entries do not confer title to the property in question in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs ought to have produced the relevant documents to establish their right over the suit schedule property and in the absence of the relevant documents to establish, how the plaintiffs have acquired the suit schedule property,

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:38544 RSA No. 43 of 2024

¶74

relief of declaration cannot be granted. In view of the declaration of law made by this Court in Hullappa Vs. The State of Karnataka, through Deputy Commissioner, Bidar and Others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958, it is held that unless the plaintiffs produce the document of title, the Civil Court cannot grant relief of declaration on the basis of

¶75

record of rights, tax paid receipts and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below is just and proper and no interference is called for in this appeal.

¶76

13. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself as the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of C.P.C.

¶77

TMP

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

¶79

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

Sri Boraiah v. Naganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Boraiah v. Naganna

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shoukath Pasha Vs Town Municipal Council

Smt Thippamma Vs Sri Badasappa

The Town Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Sri N Boraiah

Jeevanna Vs Smt Noorpatima

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri R S Raju

Sri. B T Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka