Laxmappa S/O. Venkappa Siddapur Vs Siddappa S/O.Dundappa Siddapur

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100269 OF 2020 (DEC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LAXMAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : YADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.11 12:43:41 +0530

¶15

SIDDAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC : TEACHER, R/O : YADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶16

MALLAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : YADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶17

GOVINDAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC : TEACHER, R/O : YADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶18

LAXMAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA SIDDAPUR, AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : YADAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶23

SMT. PADDAWWA W/O. LAXMAPPA SHIRGANVI, AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : ONTIGODI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶24

HANAMAWWA W/O. ADIVEPPA ONTIGODI, AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : ROOGI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶25

KALLAWWA W/O. RANGAPPA ONTIGODI, AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : ROOGI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶26

SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA GALAGALI, AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : ROOGI VILLAGE, TQ : MUDHOL, DIST : BAGALKOT-587313.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(NOTICE ISSUED TO R1, R3 TO R8 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶29

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.83/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION AND ETC.

¶30

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶37

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.83/2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, being aggrieved of the dismissal of the suit.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.

¶39

The plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff alone is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in R.S.No.201/3 measuring 6 acres 1 gunta situated at Baragi village of Mudhol Taluk, and to declare that the revenue entry/mutation entry made in the year 1981 in D.No.1838 is illegal, and consequently permanently injunct the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff that during the lifetime of the plaintiff’s father

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Sri.Venkappa, there was a partition between Sri.Venkappa and his brother Sri.Dundappa in the year 1961 and the suit schedule property measuring 6 acres 1 gunta in R.S.No.201 was allotted to the share of Sri.Venkappa, while the remaining 5 acres 13 guntas were allotted to the share of Sri.Dundappa. It was contended that the partition by way of metes and bounds was never made before 1981. It was contended that the family of the plaintiff and the defendants were separated and family properties were divided in the year 1981 during the lifetime of Sri.Venkappa and Sri.Dundappa and consequential mutation entries were made in the year 1981. It was contended that the division of the properties in the year 1981 were made equally between Sri.Venkappa and Sri.Dundappa, and therefore, Sri.Venkappa never questioned the mutation entries which were made in M.E.No.1838 dated 14.03.1981. It was contended that Sri.Venkappa during his lifetime, after partition in the year 1981, exercised acts of ownership over his portion of the property, raised loan from the

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

nationalized banks and cooperative societies by pledging

¶46

the properties that were fallen to his share. Accordingly, it was prayed by the defendants that the suit be dismissed with costs.

¶47

Based on the pleadings, the following issues were

¶48

framed by the trial court.

¶49

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his father Venkappa has acquired the suit property in a partition effected with Dundappa, the father of the defendants and enjoying the same during his lifetime?

¶50

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is enjoying the suit property after the death of his father?

¶51

3. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference caused by the defendants as averred in plaint para No.8?

¶52

4. Whether the defendant No.1 to 4 was proves that a partition effected in the year-1981 through which Venkappa has acquired 05 acre 27 guntas in

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

R.S.No.201/3 and Dundappa has acquired 05 acres

¶56

27 guntas in R.S.No.201/4 property respectively?

¶57

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief as prayed for?

¶58

6. What order or decree?

¶59

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that despite the defendants not leading any evidence after filing written statement and not contesting the matter, the trial court has proceeded to dismiss the suit, although oral and documentary evidence were placed before the trial court, to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff. It is submitted that mutation entries which were made in the year 1981 were never within the knowledge of the plaintiff or his father. After coming to know of the mutation entries, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi in RTS/AP-41/2012-13 and the appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 01.03.2018 stating that appellant therein had to approach a competent

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

civil court seeking proper relief. It was only thereafter a suit was filed. Learned counsel would therefore submit that when the factum of mutation entry was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff’s father or the plaintiff, the question of delay cannot be held against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has placed sufficient material before the trial court to show that no sooner the plaintiff came to know about the mutation entries which were made in the year 1981, he filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2012-13. However, the trial court has declined to accept such contention and on the other hand, it is held that in the cross-examination the plaintiff has clearly admitted that he came to know that the extent was reduced by the mutation entry in the year 1981 about 15 years ago, and he did not question the same immediately. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, having regard to the fact that earlier mutation entry made in terms of Diary No.529 on 03.10.1961 cannot be ignored. Learned counsel submits

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

that if such a partition has taken place in the year 1961 and mutation entries were carried out in the revenue records in the year 1961, then the subsequent change in the mutation entry in the year 1981 would amount to re-opening the partition and such mutation entry is illegal and without authority of law.

¶66

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the appeal memo, we find that despite service of notice on the respondents, there has been no representation. Even before the trial court, although defendants filed written statement, nevertheless, they did not prosecute the matter before the trial court. However, on going through the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol has rightly given his finding, based on the material available on record, and the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement.

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Although it is true that the plaintiff has placed

¶70

information before the trial court in the form of Exs.P5 to P7, which are mutation entries of the year 1961, nevertheless, it is an admitted fact that in the year 1981, during the lifetime of Sri.Venkappa, the father of the plaintiff, the mutation entries were changed, reducing the extent of land in occupation of Sri.Venkappa from 6 acres 1 gunta to 5 acres 27 guntas, the same was not questioned by Sri.Venkappa during his lifetime. It was only in the year 2012-13 that the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, questioning the mutation entries which were made in the year 1981. Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 makes provision for questioning such mutation entries, however, the period of limitation prescribed is sixty days from the date of communication of the order or the knowledge of the entry certified. The contention of the plaintiff that neither the plaintiff’s father nor the plaintiff were aware of such orders passed in the year 1981, cannot be accepted. The

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

consequence of the change in the mutation entry would be that the person in whose favour the mutation entries are made will be presumed to be enjoying the property and has put the property into cultivation. These two properties being neighbouring properties, it is futile on the part of the plaintiff to contend that he was not aware of such mutation entry made in the year 1981. The appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner was rightly rejected while directing the plaintiff to approach a competent civil court to seek proper relief.

¶74

The law laid down by this court is that, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, an entry in the record of rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. That being the position, the mutation entry which is standing in the revenue records from the year 1981 cannot be brushed

¶75

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17716-DB RFA No. 100269 of 2020

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

aside by mere statement made by the plaintiff that he was not aware of the mutation entries made in the year 1981.

¶78

The trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that by the mutation entry made in the year 1981 both Sri.Venkappa and Sri.Dundappa have an equal share of 5 acres 27 guntas, and therefore, there is equitable partition between the parties.

¶79