B Allabakash v. Sri Nawab

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025RFA/1062/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RFA No.1062/2006 (V Srishananda J, decided 10.10.2025): plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession decreed in second appeal under S.96 CPC; title upheld on sale deeds Ex.P6 (dated 25.09.1979) and Ex.P8 (dated 16.09.1941) despite variance in boundaries and measurements; defendant's admission of trespass in D.W.1 cross-examination; defendant disclaiming title and possession, alleging brother Rafiq Beig in possession; revenue records not necessary where title deed proved; Ex.P7 corporation notice as revenue document; impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; trial court judgment set aside as perverse.

What did the court decide?

Regular First Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of dismissal passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru set aside; suit decreed as prayed for; no order as to costs.

B Allabakash Vs Sri Nawab — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular First Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of dismissal passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru set aside; suit decreed as prayed for; no order as to costs.

¶175

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff establishes that he is the owner of the suit property? +3 more

¶114

Court's answer

The plaintiff established ownership under Ex.P6; the variance in measurements between Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 is not fatal, since the vendor purchased a revenue site in 1941 and the plaintiff claims a lesser measurement, and boundaries prevailing in 1941 could change by 1979 (East and North shown as road in both deeds; West/South owner-names replaced by site numbers G61/G59).

¶126

Ratio / Principle

When the defendant pleads no title whatsoever to the suit property and states he is not in possession, the suit for declaration and possession ought to have been decreed.

¶136

Key takeaways

There was a clear admission elicited in question-and-answer form (not a stray admission) in the cross-examination of D.W.1 that the defendant trespassed into the suit property and constructed the house therein; he also disowned knowledge of the contents and preparation of his chief-examination affidavit.ratio¶137
The trial Judge's dismissal of the suit solely for non-production of revenue records, while ignoring the plaintiff's title, the dual relief of declaration and possession, the plaintiff's plea of loss of possession in March 1993, and Ex.P7 (Bengaluru City Corporation notice, itself a revenue document), cannot be countenanced in law.ratio¶165

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff against dismissal of his suit for declaration and possession of Khaneshumari No.G-60 (40x30 feet), VIth Cross, Masjid Road, Gangondanahalli, Bangalore. Plaintiff traced title to a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1979 (Ex.P6) from Lakshmamma, whose own title rested on a sale deed dated 16.09.1941 (Ex.P8); variances in boundaries and measurements between Ex.P6 and Ex.P8 held immaterial where the plaintiff claimed a lesser extent and boundaries naturally changed between 1941 and 1979. The defendant admitted in cross-examination, in question-and-answer form, that he had trespassed and constructed the house, yet pleaded no title and disclaimed possession, alleging his brother Rafiq Beig was the possessor. Held: where the defendant puts forth no title and denies possession, the suit for declaration and possession ought to be decreed; dismissal solely for want of revenue records cannot be countenanced, Ex.P7 (Bengaluru City Corporation notice) itself being a revenue document. Appeal allowed; judgment and decree set aside; suit decreed as prayed for; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2006 (DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B ALLABAKASH

¶9

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs

¶10

1(a) SMT.KULSUM BEE WIFE OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs

¶11

APPELLANTS Nos.1(b) to 1(g)

¶12

1(b) SMT.KURSHEED, WIFE OF P.PYAREKHAN DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶13

1(c) SMT.MALLIKA, WIFE OF HABIBKHAN DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

1(d) SRI B.AMEER SON OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶16

1(e) SMT.PARVEEN WIFE OF B.IQBAL PASHA DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶17

1(f) SMT.SHAHEENA, WIFE OF HUSSAIN DAUGHTER OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

1(g) SRI B.DADAPEER

¶22

SON OF LATE B.ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.3-6-18C JVS STREET, HINDUPUR-515 201 ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI G S VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SRI NAWAB S/O RASULLBEIG AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PLASTIC MERCHANT NEAR MASJID ROAD, VI CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI BANGALORE 560 019

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI SWAROOP.T FOR SRI M.C.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶30

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2006 PASSED IN O.S.No.5116/1995, ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH.NO.28), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard Sri G.S. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Swaroop T., appearing for Sri M.C. Ravikumar, learned counsel for respondent.

¶37

Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant, challenging the dismissal of his suit in O.S.No.516/1995.

¶38

Facts of the case for the disposal of the present appeal in brief or as under:

¶39

A suit for declaration and possession came to be filed in respect of the following property by the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as suit property:

¶40

“All that piece and parcel of the immoveable property bearing Khaneshumari No.G-60, measuring 40x30 feet, situated at VIth Cross, Masjid Road, Gangondanahalli, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, bounded on the East by : Road, West by : Property No.G-61, North by:Road, South by:Property No.G-59.”

¶41

Plaintiff contended that he is the owner of the suit property, having purchased it from Lakshmamma, wife of

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Venkatachala, through a registered sale deed dated 25.09.1979. It is contented that said Lakshamamma has purchased the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1941 from her vendor Sri. B. Krishna Iyengar.

¶45

It is also contented by the plaintiff that plaintiff was working with M/s. Balaji Trading Company at Tharagupet till 1982 and thereafter he shifted his family to Hindupur in State of Andhra Pradesh and carrying on the business of dealer in Husk at Hindupur and used to visit the suit property often.

¶46

In the month of March 1993, when he visited the suit property, he noticed that the defendant had trespassed into the property and was in the process of construction of a house and the same was objected to.

¶47

It is the case of the plaintiff that after purchase he could not immediately construct the property in the suit land and defendants without there being any right, title or interest, started interfering with the suit property. When the same was objected by the plaintiff, defendant along with his relatives and followers trespassed into the suit property and forcibly

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

constructed a house which necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and possession.

¶52

Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant appeared through his Advocate and filed written statement.

¶53

In the written statement, he contended that he is not a necessary party to the suit and it is Rafiq Beig who purchased the property bearing No.787, situated at Gangondanahalli Village, from one Sakamma, wife of Huchappa under the sale deed dated 16.08.1990. Said Rafiq is in possession of the suit property and it is Rafiq who has constructed the house investing the huge money. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶54

Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned trial Judge raised following issues:

¶55

“1. Does plaintiff prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?

¶56

2. Does he further prove that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property?

¶57

3. Whether the defendant is a necessary party to the suit?

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

4. Is plaintiff entitled to the relief of declaration and possession?

¶61

5. What relief ?”

¶62

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record eight documents which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P8, comprising of copy of the notice, endorsement, encumbrance certificate, notice received from Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, certified copy of the sale deed in respect of suit property, copy of the legal notice issued to defendant, certified copy of the sale deed of the vendor of the plaintiff.

¶63

As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and did not place any documentary evidence and maintained that he is not in possession of the suit and not a necessary party to the suit and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶64

After conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds:

¶69

The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶70

The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is perverse and contrary to the pleadings, evidence and the documents produced by the Appellant.

¶71

The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is based on the extraneous and immaterial facts.

¶72

 The Trial Court has contradicted in respect of its own earlier decision and grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that "INSPITE OF SUCH A SPECIFIC PLEADING BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF HAS NOT TAKEN NECESSARY STEPS TO IMPLEAD SAID RAFIQ BEIG AS NECESSARY PARTY TO THE SUIT". It is submitted that the Appellant has filed I.A.No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 to implead the said Rafiq Beig as the proposed defendant and the Trial Court has permitted the Appellant to issue notice to the proposed defendant by way of paper publication when the proposed defendant not received the Court notices. But later on the Trial Court dismissed I.A.No.3 with an observation that "I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LOOKING TO THE SCOPE OF THE SUIT AND THE SPECIFIC CASE MADE OUT BY THE PLAINTIFF, THE PRESENCE OF PROPOSED DEFENDANT RAFIQ BEIG IS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY BEFORE THE COURT TO SETTLE OR ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE IN THE

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

PRESENT SUIT". Hence the Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that in taking the view that he Appellant has not taken necessary steps to implead the said Rafiq Beig. On this ground alone the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶77

The Trial Court has grossly erred in considering or in coming o the conclusion that the Respondent is not a necessary party and one Rafiq Beig is in possession of the suit schedule property as stated by the Respondent in his written statement and evidence even though the Respondent clearly admits in his statement of objections to the I.A. under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and Mr.Rafiq Beig is his vendor. It clearly shows that the Respondent has trespassed into the suit schedule property and he is liable to be handed over possession of the suit schedule property to the Appellant as he has no right, title or interest over the suit property.

¶78

The Trial Court has grossly erred in not considering the documents/title deeds produced by the Appellant to prove his title in respect of the suit schedule property even though the Respondent has not disputed the same. On the other hand the Respondent has not produced a single piece of paper to prove that he has not trespassed into the suit property. Hence the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court though the Appellant proves his title by producing title deeds and

¶79

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

connected documents is against to law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶83

The Trial Court without considering the title deeds and other connected documents produced by the Appellant wrongly put the burden of proving title to the suit schedule property on the Appellant and on the same point the Trial Court blindly accepted the statements of the Respondent without examining the veracity of the said statements by the Respondent. Hence dismissal of the suit on this ground is liable to be set aside.

¶84

The Trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant has not taken any steps for measurement and location of the suit property. It is submitted that once the Respondent has admitted that he is in possession of the property, measurement and locating the suit property does not arise as the Respondent has not disputed the measurement of the suit property. Hence the view taken by the Trial Court is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶85

The Trial Court erroneously coming to the conclusion that the schedule mentioned in the title documents i., Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-8 produced by the Appellant does not tally with each other. It is submitted that Ex.P-8 is the title deed of the Appellant's vendor comprising of a property measuring 100 feet by 75 feet, wherein the suit property i.e., property mentioned in Ex.P-6 measures 30 feet by 40 feet, which shows that the Appellant purchased a part of his Vendor's property to

¶86

10 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

an extent of 30 feet by 40 feet. This fact has not been examined by the Trial Court. Hence the view taken by the Trial Court is erroneous, imaginary and not in accordance with law.

¶90

The Trial Court has grossly ignored the fact and failed to recognize the sale deed i.e., Ex.P-6 as substantive document to prove the title of the Appellant to the property in question. It is submitted that Ex.P-6 being the certified copy of the sale deed (the original had been lost as per evidence adduced) the said certified copy which was admitted in evidence as Ex.P-6 should have been recognized as sufficient proof of ownership and title of the Appellant to the property in question instead of insisting kandayam and tax paid receipts.

¶91

The Trial Court has erred in not correctly applying the law on the subject to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶92

The Trial Court has erred in drawing correct conclusions from the materials i.e., pleadings, evidence and documents produced by the Appellant on record.”

¶93

Sri G.S. Venkata Subba Rao, learned counsel for

¶94

the appellant reiterating the grounds heard in the appeal memorandum vehemently contented that learned trial Judge failed to notice that there was a categorical admission in the form of question and answer in the cross examination of D.W.1,

¶95

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

wherein defendant has admitted that he has trespassed into the suit property and constructed the house therein.

¶98

He also pointed out that the answer elicited in the cross-examination to the effect that D.W.1 does not know the contents of the affidavit which is filed in lieu of examination-inchief, which would make it clear that defendant is somehow trying to avoid decreeing of the suit on the ground that his brother Rafiq is in possession of the property.

¶99

He also pointed out that when the construction was carried in the suit property in the month of March 1993, the same was objected to by the plaintiff and a notice was also issued by the plaintiff to the defendant vide Ex.P7.

¶100

Therefore, the defendant saying that he is not a necessary party would not ipso facto should not result in dismissal of the suit.

¶101

He further pointed out that mere non production of the revenue records by the plaintiff itself would not have been the reason for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, especially when there is a title deed produced by the plaintiff which is

¶102

12 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

marked at Ex.P6 and the title deed of his vendor marked at Ex.P8 and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶106

Per contra, Sri T. Swaroop, learned counsel representing the defendant/respondent supports the impugned judgment.

¶107

He would maintain that defendant has got nothing to do with the suit property which has been specifically mentioned in the written statement itself and it is Rafiq Beig who is in possession of the suit property.

¶108

Therefore, defendant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit and therefore dismissal of the suit is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal with costs.

¶109

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶110

On such perusal of the material on record, in the light of the arguments of both sides, following points would arise for consideration.

¶111

13 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

1) Whether plaintiff establishes that he is the owner of the suit property?

¶115

2) Whether plaintiff further establishes that there was an interference caused by the defendant and defendant trespassed into the suit property and thereby plaintiff lost the possession?

¶116

3) Whether impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity?

¶117

1. What order?

¶118

25. Regarding Point Nos.1 to 3 . These points are

¶119

taken up for consideration together in order to avoid repetition of discussion of the material facts and for convenience.

¶120

In the case on hand, plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed marked at Ex.P6. He has purchased the same from Lakshmamma. Lakshmamma in turn had purchased the suit property from Krishnaraja Iyengar, vide Ex.P8.

¶121

No doubt in the sale deed marked at Ex.P6, boundaries found in Ex.P8 would not tally with each other and so also the measurements.

¶122

However, since the property that was purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff was a revenue site in the year 1941,

¶123

14 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

if the plaintiff is claiming lesser measurements by the time Lakshmamma sold the property in favour of the plaintiff should not come in the way of plaintiff establishing the title.

¶127

Insofar as boundaries are concerned, the boundaries that were shown in the title deed of the vendor of the plaintiff did not match with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P6. In other words, there is a variance with regard to the boundaries in Ex.P8 and Ex.P6.

¶128

It is to be noted that over a passage of time that is from 1941 to 1979, the boundaries could not be the same as the boundaries that prevailed in the year 1941. But, on the Eastern side and Northern side, even in Ex.P8 it is shown as road and Ex.P6 also contains there is a road existing on East and North.

¶129

Insofar as the West and South is concerned, what has been mentioned in Ex.P8 is the names of the owners of the property. But in Ex.P6, the site numbers namely G61 is mentioned on the Western side and G59 is mentioned on the Southern side.

¶130

15 -

¶131

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

Possibly that somebody has developed the land

¶134

over a period of time and revenue sites have been given the numbers as with the prefix of G.

¶135

Plaintiff’s property is also assigned as G60. No doubt, the revenue layout plan is not placed on record by the plaintiff. But the defence that is put forth before the Court is that defendant is no way connected with the property nor he is in possession of the suit property. The same has been taken note of by the learned trial judge while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶136

Pertinently, when there is no title at all that is pleaded and put forth before the Court by the defendant in respect of suit property and when defendant says that he is not in possession of the suit property, the suit for declaration and possession ought to have been decreed.

¶137

Further, there is a clear admission in the cross examination by the defendant that he has trespassed into the suit property and constructed the house therein. This is found in third page of the deposition of D.W.1.

¶138

16 -

¶139

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

The relevant portion of the cross examination is

¶142

culled out hereunder for ready reference:

¶143

“Question of the counsel:- You have constructed house by tresspass into the suit property. What do you say?

¶144

Answer of the witness :- yes

¶145

It is false to suggest that myself and my elder brother have constructed house to dispossess plaintiff.

¶146

Question of the counsel:- Plaintiff Objected while you and your brother constructing house in suit property. What do you say?

¶147

Answer of the witness:- I do not know as I was not present in the suit property.

¶148

I am not in possession of suit property. (Witness volunteers that his brother is in possession of suit property.) I was not in possession of suit property as on the date of fling of this suit. I was never in possession of suit property. I have not filed any affidavits before this court. I do not know the contents of my affidavit filed for chief examination. I do not know who has got this affidavit prepared, I have not given instructions to draft my affidavit for chief examination. I do not know that my brother, Rafeeq Baig has no any kind of right over suit property. The address shown in my affidavit filed for chief examination is the address referred to suit property. This address is given by my brother.”

¶149

17 -

¶150

NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

It is pertinent to note that the said answer is elicited not as a stray admission, but it was elicited in the form of question and answer.

¶153

Further, D.W.1 also admits in his cross-examination that he does not know who prepared the affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief so also he does not know the contents of the affidavit of his examination-in-chief.

¶154

In his cross-examination it is also elicited that he does not know from whom the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff.

¶155

He also admits that he is not aware of the registered sale deed dated 16.09.1941, wherein Lakshmiammal who is the vendor of the plaintiff having purchased the suit property.

¶156

Likewise, he also admits that he does not know that Lakshmiammal having obtained the possession of the suit property from her vendor.

¶157

He has denied the suggestion that his brother Rafiq Beig has no right over the suit property. Whereas, in the

¶158

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶159

HC-KAR

¶160

written statement, defendant has specifically stated that it is

¶161

his brother Rafiq who is in the possession of the suit property.

¶162

In his examination-in-chief also, he has stated that

¶163

he is not a necessary party and to his knowledge it is his brother Rafiq Beig who is in possession of the property having put up a valid construction thereon by investing huge money.

¶164

When the defendant has specifically stated that it is his brother who is in possession of the property and he has specifically answered that he has trespassed into the suit property and constructed the house, suit for declaration and possession ought to have been decreed by the trial Court.

¶165

However, the learned trial Judge, not noticing the title in the plaintiff and the fact that the suit was filed for both declaration and possession, dismissing the suit only on the ground that there were no revenue records that were placed on record to show the possession over the suit property, cannot be countenanced in law, especially when the plaintiff himself says that he lost the possession over the suit property in the month of March 1993.

¶166

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:40354 RFA No. 1062 of 2006

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

Further, the notice issued by Bengaluru City

¶169

Corporation marked at Ex.P7 is also a revenue document which could have been taken note of by the learned trial Judge before dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶170

Under such circumstances, finding recorded by the

¶171

learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment needs to be set aside and point Nos.1 to 3 are to be answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and accordingly they are answered.

¶172