Second appeal by plaintiffs challenging concurrent dismissal of their declaratory suit with injunction over land at Muthasandra Village. The High Court found Exhibit P18 pertained to Survey No.59/3, not Survey No.59/4, and dismissed the appeal at admission, permitting the appellants to seek boundary fixation from the Revenue Department.
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 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.510 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE RESIDING AT: MUTHASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 104.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 104.
RESPONDNETS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT MUTHASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 104.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20TH FEBRUARY, 2024 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL No.53 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05TH FEBRUARY, 2018 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.295 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.
NC: 2024:KHC:36586 RSA NO.510 OF 2024
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 4, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20th February, 2024 passed in Regular Appeal No.53 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 05th February, 2018 passed in Original Suit No.295 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.
effected in respect of land bearing Survey No.59/4P3 measuring 3 acres situate at Muthasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru and same was re-numbered as Survey No.59/6 measuring 11 guntas and Survey No.59/7 measuring 2.29 acres. It is also stated in the plaint that the Surveyor had measured the land pertaining to the late Giriyapa and fixed Haddubasthu, however, at the time of survey, the defendants refused to sign the mahazar and therefore, the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.295 of 2012 stating that the defendants have no right in respect of suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:36586 RSA NO.510 OF 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:36586 RSA NO.510 OF 2024
to have been executed in favour of late Giriyappa. He further contended that, both the Courts below ought to have considered the fact that the Deputy Director of Land Records has set-aside the Phodi made in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.59/4, 59/6 and 59/7 and that apart, the encumbrance certificate shows that the said Giriyappa has acquired the property as per registered Sale Deed dated 06th April, 1955 in Survey No.59/4 to an extent of 4 acres 17 guntas situate at Muthasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru and as such, the dispute is only in respect of the measurement of 'A' and 'B' schedule property. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:36586 RSA NO.510 OF 2024
Court, makes it clear that, Exhibit D1-Sale Deed dated 09th January, 1955 is in respect of land bearing Survey No.59/3 situate towards Western side measuring to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and said Sale deed has been executed by late Giriyappa (father of the plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 6) in favour of one Kempanarasaiah. Therefore, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper as the plaintiffs have not produced relevant documents to establish that the plaintiffs have to be declared as owners of the schedule 'B' property. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record particularly, the cross-examination of PW1, had rightly re-appreciated the material on record and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.295 of 2012. It is well settled principle in law that, in order to establish the right in a declaratory suit, it is the duty of plaintiff to produce the relevant document/title deeds and same has been considered by this Court in the case of HULLAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4958. Therefore following the law declared by this Court in the aforementioned case, appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as the appellants have not made out a
NC: 2024:KHC:36586 RSA NO.510 OF 2024
case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
ARK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiffs produced relevant title documents to establish ownership of schedule 'B' property in their declaratory suit.
Whether a substantial question of law arose warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hullappa vs. State of KarnatakaFollowed¶10
ILR 2012 KAR 4958 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Gangavenkataiah
Smt. Lakshmidevamma
Sri. Nagaraju
Sri. Shivanna
Smt. Mangalamma
Sri. N.D. Rajanna
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
